User talk:Shannonbramer

Greetings, I added a box to the page recently created by KonradBH and substantially edited by 74.114.227.72, (see the article's revision history page). It seems that Ms. Bramer is only notable to a select group that seems to all be the poet (are you the poet?), although her/your works I will agree are legitimate. The box can easily be removed with more contributions and substantion from third parties that don't have a conflict of interest. The IP address shows as coming from Guelth. Keeper76 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On another note, if you are not Shannon Bramer, using her name as your username could be seen as a violation of the username policy Keeper76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper76 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is KonradBH. The IP address 74.114.227.72 is one of mine. The username Shannonbramer is, indeed, Shannon Bramer's. Allow me to refute the suggestion of COI:

1) Shannon Bramer and I are acquainted, though I've only met her once - and only because I contacted her after reading various sections of her books, which are notable enough to justify mention in Wikipedia anyway. Keep in mind that my hailing from this fantastical city known as "Guelth" has little to do with my stumbling across S.B.'s work, as there are many cities where this could've happened.

2) After writing the initial article on S.B., I requested over e-mail that she review it to ensure the details were correct, as it goes without saying that she is the best authority on this subject. In her alteration, she only made a few changes, none of which indicate any kind of bias: she specified that the university she attended was York University, etc. Review the logs for confirmation in this matter; there is no point in me waxing descriptive.

3) If the fact that no critically negative responses to S.B.'s work were either cited or externally linked to in the article was a factor in it being deemed a potential COI, that is because, to my knowledge, none exist. Keep in mind that the demesne of Canadian poetry is a relatively small one, and that most Canadian poets will only be reviewed by [x small number of publications], decreasing the odds of there being any negative articles to drawn on for the sake of creating the pretense of objectivity. If, however, it is thought that both the positive and negative receptions to an author's work need to be represented on Wikipedia for an article to be considered objective (even when the latter viewpoint is nowhere credibly recorded) I will create a GeoCities page which will include seven negative responses to her work, all in haiku format. It will begin like this:

Konrad BH's Lament to Keeper76

Get your COI

tag off, don't do it again.

Refrigerator.

--

Actually, I'll save you the effort - I just deleted it.

Yrs candidly,

Konrad Bongard


 * Mr. Bongard, I appreciate your response and I will not be adding the COI tag again. Here are my thoughts, if interested:

1.) I do not believe that a "criticism" section is pivotal, or even required, to make an article a viable, appropriate article although you most likely agree that helps remove the appearance of bias.  I would think that every artist's goal, to some extent, is to write/draw/paint/sculpt/whatever - things that people like.  After that, they want to do the same for more people and more people.  Eventually, statistically, someone will not like Shannon Bramer's work, and tell the world as much, in a reliable source.  There is no need to create a geocities page (although I think you may have been being sarcastic anyway - point taken)

2.) I did state in my previous post that I thought the Shannon Bramer page deserves to exist based on the legitimacy of her works (I googled the ISBN numbers).  Her page wouldn't be the first for a relatively obscure poet.  I won't, hoewever, be the last editor to discover that the only contributors are from Guelph, and more recently, Toronto. (my sincere apologies for the Guelth-ificaton of your pad, won't happen again)

3.) If any other editor stumbles into the newly created Shannon Bramer page (and someone will, I did) they will see that the article was created by you, repeatedly edited by 74.114.227.72, then finally edited by shannonbramer, which is that user's only contribution.  From the order of things, it will seem unusual (but obviously not impossible) that KonradBH started the article, then an unsigned user significantly updated it, then the subject of the article herself "finsished" it.  It has the appearance that "74.114.227.72" is not you, but Shannon Bramer, simply because of the time order (most editors tend not to post unsigned after they've created a user id, they post unsigned right before they have a user id.)

4. Even if the ONLY change made by Shannon Bramer herself to her own article is adding a university, or even adding a middle initial, it is still COI and I'm sorry we don't agree on this. As an example, I can decide anything about myself and post it in my article (I don't have one, nor am I even CLOSE to ever deserving one). My middle initial is X. I went to Harvard. My goldfish is named Snoopy. I hate pudding. I have an elephant in my backyard. If I put it in there myself, it may or may not be true, and saying "it goes without saying that I am the best authority on me" is not verifiable, not sourceable, and impossibly entrenched in "Stephen Colbert style" self-bias, regardless of the triviality of the information provided. Who's to keep me from saying "I'm the best sculptor in Chicago according to me" and then citing my own homepage? It's a fine line. A solution? I don't know. The only thing added by Shannon Bramer was the university she attended, according to you. So add a link to a York University alumni page showing exactly that. My point is, the article needs third parties -- unbiased, "reporting without self-interest," or whatever you want to call it. They don't have to criticize her work, or praise it for that matter, just verify her existence and the biographical information about her. I went to the links provided, and they are quality links IMO. I wish (as you probably do too) that the Coach House Biography link was a little more detailed.

5. Please do not construe this post as accusational, because it is very much not so. I believe you that you are 74.114.227.72, and that you emailed Shannon Bramer, and met her once, and live in Guelph. I believe that she went to York University. But it doesn't matter what I believe. Most editors aren't going to care - they will see that you are a new user, Shannon Bramer is a new user and see collusion.

6. An unsigned user 99.225.10.54, interestingly from Toronto, has updated the Shannon Bramer page, and even more interestingly, has added her to the York University page. Doesn't make it true unfortunately, even thought it's probably true. Although I realize that Toronto is home to millions, and Guelph has lots of people too, the coincidences will be seen by others as well.

Good luck to you. Keeper76 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)