User talk:Morganlmallory

Hello, Morganlmallory. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that you appear to be one of the editors for the new HAR, so I wanted to let you know about conflict of interest. There's nothing that says you can't contribute, but it's probably a good idea to try to work with someone uninvolved with the magazine in order to avoid any potential COI concerns. I also wanted to warn you against representing the current edition as the first launching of the magazine, as it isn't. The magazine was originally launched in 1966 and the current incarnation is a re-launching under the title and premise. A "revamping", if you will. I know this probably sounds incredibly condescending, but it isn't intended to be as such. It's just that it's very important to stress that the current incarnation is the second launching, as the way the article read would be very confusing to someone coming into the article without having any knowledge of the publication's past, which is why the AfD nominator thought that the 2010 launch was the first launch. I also wanted to state that it's unnecessary to list the class year of every person and that you don't really need to list each person unless they're very, very notable. Other than that, we will need to find some non-primary or trivial sources to show notability. Since you're in the best position to know of any non-Harvard coverage of the paper, do you know if the 1960s incarnation or the current incarnation has won any awards? Been covered in a paper or news show that is not run/owned by Harvard College? We can technically add things that are published by the college, but they'd be considered WP:PRIMARY sources since they're all by Harvard students. I also want to warn that using catalog entries by other colleges won't show notability either- they just show that the magazine exists, which isn't really necessary. It's kind of a weird little dance when it comes to what sources do and don't show notability, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask any of us on the AfD entry, on my talk page, or on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)