User talk:CorkerCSA

Welcome!
Hello, CorkerCSA, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Stephen A. Corker, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: How to proceed with the Corker article
This message was originally left at User talk:C.Fred and is duplicated here.

There a couple of issues in play here. Let's start with the fact that you're editing an ancestor's article. That means you have a conflict of interest, so you need to be very careful and make sure your edits are backed up with reliable sources that have already been published in other works. It's a slippery slope bringing in material from your own book, since that could be seen as using original research. Further, Corker's own letters are of limited value as a source because they're a primary source.

Regarding the material in the article, yes, it should be balanced, but the verifiability policy does give preference to secondary sources over primary. Yes, that could mean 1870s media bias is in play. If that's the case, you'll want to discuss the matter at the article's talk page (Talk:Stephen A. Corker) and work toward consensus on how to address the situation.

Finally, be very careful in allegations you make about another editor's off-Wiki actions or identity. Wikipedia policies take a very hard line against revealing personal details about another editor. If the editor has self-revealed on Wikipedia, it's okay to use that information. (E.g., I state in my user page that I'm from Georgia, so that's open knowledge. However, it would be outing for another user to make a statement about my street address, since that's personal information.) So, it's a slippery slope to link to a particular community unless he's made a statement somewhere on Wikipedia about being from there. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fred...I am in Georgia too...Native...

1) first paragraph.....I have no intention of putting anything in the article from my book at this time...Since it has not been published yet is one aspect...second when published I would note the "conflict" of interest and go straight to my source....it will get published next year after the upcoming tax season...I am a CPA

2) Regarding balancing...this is what happened with the US house historian. Now their official publication is not one-sided nor slanted negatively towards my ancestor. They capitulated with their slanted bias based on the official house document which makes up approx. 25% of my book now.

3) I understand. I did some research to find out who was putting so much in my ancestor's page that is one sided and a pure attempt to put my ancestor in a negative light. Very little interest in my ancestor but me until this person swooped in throwing negative information in the site.

I would appreciate your thoughts on the best way to handle updating my ancestor's site. I would prefer to take out information that is not pertinent and others to put the opposing side. I do not want to engage Captain Stegge as this person not out for historical context and presentation...their efforts are purely against the purpose of Wikipedia and they only seek to attack me indirectly.

CorkerCSA (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear and CorkerCSA, I would prefer not to have any information related to my real life identity tied directly with my identity as Wikipedia editor CaptainStegge. The editor CorkerCSA has accused this account on Wikipedia and elsewhere online of being several people in real life, who I am not. I have no affiliation with the professor with which he has had a previous difficulty. To the best of my knowledge I have never met the professor.


 * What I am willing to have associated with this account: I have a bachelor's degree in history and a master's degree in history. Also, I am aware of the processes that go into writing history and how sources are used by professional historians.


 * I became aware of the article after CorkerCSA made it known that he had been editing his ancestor's page. I was afraid of a conflict of interest. Seeing how the article was at that time without in text references and was pretty scant I began engaging in an over all renewal of the page.


 * On another user's talk page he has mentioned where I included the accusations against former Representative Corker of having been in Savannah during the Civil War. It might be needed to let readers know that those accusations against him were false. Considering the section on Representative Corker's military service which prove that he was not in Savannah, but a POW I believed a repetition of those facts were unnecessary. In addition the section about his military service was previously just a few line with no citations. Since my extensive re-editing of the page I have expanded upon his service and included citations. I did include a mention of how his friends denied the charges against him. I felt that was good enough considering the section about his military service.


 * CorkerCSA has suggested that the information I have added was done to shame him and against the purpose of Wikipedia. I thoroughly disagree.


 * Firstly, it is fact that Representative Corker owned slaves. Is there anything shameful in that? That is a personal opinion. Many of my own ancestors owned slaves. Does Representative Corker's ownership of slaves have any bearing upon his importance? I would argue, yes. Slave ownership was an economic indicator of how well off a person was and would also suggest to some extent their motivations else where in life.


 * In addition it shows how complex race relations were during the South in that period. You have a former slave owner who when he first ran for Congress was accused of being in league with the Klan by his Republican opponent. Yet, just eight years later when he was again running for Congress on the Greenback ticket, he was accused of being a race traitor by his Democratic opponent. The records seem to indicate that the problems with race relations were used to get him elected one time and to make sure he did not get elected another. The sources show that history is more complex of an issue than some people would like to think. I do not know Representative Corker's views on race outside of what has been published in sources. Given what we know about him, they must have been complex. Representative Corker's letters might shed additional light on the topic, but as they have not been published citing them would be against Wikipedia's policies.


 * CorkerCSA has called what I have edited "negative information." That might be indicative of a conflict of interest on his part with this topic. I have nothing for or against Representative Corker. As a historian I try to be objectively detached from the subject as humanly possible, while trying to be aware of the potential biases present in all sources. When I cited sources that were problematic, I tried to make sure it was noted through the writing. Ie. It was reported... instead of X happened. And also using Representative Corker's responses against negative allegations.


 * CorkerCSA has accused me of being one sided. In the section related to the contested 1870 election, I included how some people felt the election had been plagued by fraud, but others believed they had been peaceful and fair. None of the previous versions of the article until my own edits even mentioned the contested nature of the election.


 * As for the piecemeal nature of the article, that is to be expected for an article about a Congressman who only served 39 days and has practically nothing published about him. The current version of the article is by no means perfect, but it is far better than it was before I began editing it. The article can and should be improved. When contentions about contest arise they should be handled through the article's talk page through dialogue between editors.


 * I have edited many other articles on Wikipedia before, most of them relating to history. CorkCSA contributions have either been on or related to the article for Representative Corker or on an another article that mentions the controversy between CorkerCSA and a professor, in which he made an edit that was again in conflict of interest and did not cite any sources.
 * CaptainStegge (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)