User talk:Scrow1

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Scrow1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Carol W. Greider, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

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.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia: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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia and Potential Conflict of Interest

I totally understand the rules of Wikipedia edits. The intent is not to edit Dr. Greider's page independently. She asked me repeatedly to help remove reference to her ex-husband only, not her public life story or academic accomplishments. She tried to remove his name herself without luck. They have been divorced for some time and repeatedly seeing his name appear back on her Wikipedia page is upsetting to her. We are only editing this portion of the Wikipedia entry which was orginally put up by someone else, not her. In fact, she said there are a number of factual mistakes in the article which she is happy to correct if anyone is interested in getting it right. Please advise on the best course of action. She would like to edit it herself and can produce credentials to show she is who she says she is (identified source). Thank you for your help and consideration. Shirley Crow, Administrator, Molecular Biology and Genetics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Please discuss any requested changes on the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who has re-added it, I'd be more than happy to discuss. As ukexpat said, by editing the article and being closely related to the subject, it has now become a conflict of interest as it would be making edits to an autobiography. As the article is of a living person, "...material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

·Neutral point of view (NPOV)

·Verifiability (V)

·No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right." (per WP:BLP) As such, any unsourced information (for any bios for living people) must be immediately removed.

However, based on a number of different sources, it seems as though a marriage did exist .. or at least the present sources indicate so. If there is a factual error, it's important to fix it. If the subject has now split, that should be mentioned in the article, but per above there must be secondary sourcing to add said information to the article.

Please let me know how we can move forward with factually correct information. As ukexpat said, the standard operating procedure is to discuss contested changes on the page's talk page. —GauchoDude (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Greider's Wikipedia page

Do you need Dr. Greider's divorce decree in order to remove the entry? Why is her marital status of any interest? It has nothing to do with her accomplishments, or professional recognition. Thank you.

Dr. Greider's Wikipedia Page

I just spoke with Dr. Greider and if you would like to give me your name, email and/or phone number, she can speak with you directly and give you whatever proof you need to verify the source of information. She is concerned that the article about her is accurate. Thank you for your willingness to work with us. My email is scrow1@jhmi.edu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.18 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteers and we do not deal with article content by phone. As advised above, please discuss on the article's talk page the changes that you think need to be made to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the matter further, there are a few references 1, 2, and 3 that mention a separation. This will be added to the article accordingly. Does this rectify the situation? —GauchoDude (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Greider's Wikipedia Page

I have spoken with Dr. Greider and sent her the articles you reference. She pointed out that she is divorced, not separated, which the articles mention. She does not want reference to her previous marriage on the site. She is willing to discuss in person and provide the proof you need if that is required. Please let me know how best to get this resolved. Thank you. scrow1@jhmi.edu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.18 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Greider's Wikipedia Page

Hi, Dr. Greider suggested you view this link: http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquirySearch.jis and search under: GREIDER, CAROLYN. It is evidence of her divorce that is public information. It would be preferable not to mention the ex spouse but if you have to print something, please make sure the divorce is noted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.18 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me in this direction. It will be noted as such. I will leave out the documentation above per WP:BLPPRIVACY as it contains fairly sensitive, irrelevant information (address) for privacy considerations. Please advise to any further factually incorrect information that I can correct, should it exist in the article. —GauchoDude (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]