User talk:Emily heller

Welcome!

Hello, Emily heller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --אדמוןד ואודס_{自分の投稿記録} 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any Question Answered

Can we continue discussion on the talk page. Wikipedia is NPOV and must allow a balanced view of organisations. Also anyone with competing interests must declare them (eg working for an organisation)

The information you added to this article I consider to be weasel words, not a neutral point of view. It is implicit that if you do not meet the standards of any organization, your services will be terminated - this does not need to be stated in the article. I find it interesting that the only edit you have made to Wikipedia is to this article. This makes me believe that you're the one with an agenda. Andrew walker (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Perhaps (and I am making a wild guess here) you used to be employed by Any Question Answered, but they have terminated your contract, and (to punish them?) you decided to include it in the article. In that case, please note that Wikipedia has a policy that content included in the articles should be verifiable using reliable sources; your personal experience isn't a reliable source. Unless the organization publishes its hiring and firing policy, or unless experiences like yours has been covered by a third-party source (newspaper etc.), it shouldn't be included in the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, Andrew. For the record, no I haven't ever been employed by AQA but some of my friends have. Thanks for accusing me of "having an agenda". I think it is public knowledge that AQA pays around £6 - £9 per hour but this is dependent on speed and there is no guarantee of a minimum wage as all researchers are self employed. I just want to ensure an accurate article.--Emily heller (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is the experience of your friends considered a reliable source. Apologies if you feel you've been unfairly accused of "having an agenda" but, quite frankly, it appears that you do. Andrew walker (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, Thanks for constantly making personal accusations of having an agenda. That's what this site is about - making personal accusations at people, rather than building articles.

I do not claim that my friends are citable sources nor have I sought to edit the article again. You have sought to make accusations about me on my page, so again thank you for that.

I did state that it is public knowledge that AQA pays around £6 - £9 per hour; but this is dependent on speed and there is no guarantee of a minimum wage as all researchers are self employed. I'm just making a comment on my own talk page, not on the article itself.

I do think there is an issue of conflict of interest, and I might raise it again at some point, but given the personal and repeated nature of attacks, I'm not sure I want to engage in edits for the time being.

I wasn't really aware of the conflict of interest policy, but just a quick search in the search box on the left gave a whole wealth of information on the wikipedia policy.--Emily heller (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way Emily. If you make contentious edits to a Wikipedia article and, when challenged, go on to question the neutrality of others, you should expect to have your own motivations brought into question. At the end of the day, you were unable to provide any reasonable justification for the edits you made to Any Question Answered. Andrew walker (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I think I may well come back in force on the AQA article. I've got a couple of friends who both have told me that they were both "pretty pissed off" by the manner in which they were treated by AQA. Before you accuse me of using sources which aren't verifiable, I think there are ample reasons to include the totally valid, and factual criticism of AQA on that page.

I want to stress that my understanding is that this isn't meant to be some corporate soap box where people can promote their business. My view is that that is how the AQA article reads. You may have a different view but you also work for the organisation. Not a single criticism of the organisation has been tolerated on the page, and the people who remove criticisms are all paid by AQA. Noone is taking the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest seriously. --Emily heller (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emily, having friends who are "pretty pissed off" with a given company is not a justifiable reason to go negatively editing a Wikipedia article. Andrew walker (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, I wasn't "negatively editing", I was editing it to be in a Neutral point of view. Currently it isn't neutral. It reads like a piece of advertising.

I've just had a quick look around and lots of pages have a criticism section. The AQA one is one of the only pages where any criticism is not tolerated, and it seems that at least one of the people editing has a direct financial interest in keeping it that way.

If a company wants to go round using its staff to hound anyone who tries to make a balanced article, and allow an article to be a puff piece bordering on advertising, then thats fine, but think about how it reflects on the company.--Emily heller (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you would be to take your criticisms to an admin in which case, show them what you wrote, show them what's been written here and let them decide. But please refrain from editing the article yourself, as it appears you and your friends clearly have an axe to grind. Andrew walker (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, at the top of the page there, someone has given me a list of the five pillars of wikipedia. I clicked on the link and in part it says this: "Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. ... Act in good faith,"

Bearing this in mind, this principle of civility, and acting in good faith, I'd like to remind you of the commenting you are constantly doing on my page and the tone it is in:

-"You have an agenda"

-"if you feel you've been unfairly accused of "having an agenda" ... quite frankly, it appears that you do."

-"you and your friends clearly have an axe to grind"

As I've stated repeatedly throughout this page I just want an accurate article. I also have tried to conduct myself in a polite and civil manner. I would be grateful if you no longer comment on my page.

I think two of the key principles there are "Avoiding conflicts of interest" and "being civil". Its for others to judge whether your comments on my page which are personal to me are civil or not. I also think we've established that those who have a clear financial motive to promote an organisation might have a clear conflict of interest if they are seen to censor criticism. As I said before, its for others to judge whether hounding those who attempt to make balanced articles reflects well on the company.

I would be grateful if you stop commenting on my page. Thanks--Emily heller (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the fact that this is your talk page does not give you an automatic right to have the last word on any discussion that takes place on it. As I've outlined to you more than politely, please address any criticisms you may have of the Any Question Answered article to an administrator, showing them what you wrote in the article, and what's been discussed here, and let them decide. Andrew walker (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew. I've made my views clear in the post above, and I've asked you twice to stop contacting me. It's up to you whether or not you wish to respect my wishes. As this is my talk page, any edit you make to it comes up as a message directly to me. It's for others to judge whether or not your behaviour seems sensible, and in keeping with the policy of civility I outlined above. I really would rather be left alone now, as I've said I've tried to make only one change to a page, and you repeatedly come and comment on my talk page. I only wish to ensure that articles are accurate, not engage in endless conversation.

I'll repeat it again, I would prefer it if you no longer contact me as I feel you are hounding me. I will not respond to any future messages you write on this page. Thanks. If you wish to discuss the AQA article, maybe a good place to do that would be on the AQA talk page, not on my personal page. --Emily heller (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel that's been the case Emily. You asked for the matter to be discussed and I've discussed it with you. Please don't get so upset when the discussion doesn't go your way. Andrew walker (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my suspicion (in fact, I have freely admitted that it was a wild guess). Your second version of the article is appropriately written and cites a reference; good work. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Your second edit is much better. Andrew walker (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]