User talk:SithLordSparklePants

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Dear SithLordSparklePants: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Stormy clouds (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Good work on your draft. However, you appear to be using external links in lieu of citations throughout the article, which is not advised. Please read this page, and amend the links to citations, or partition them from the main body of the draft, appropriately. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

July 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you recently removed content from KHSL-TV without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia for promotion[edit]

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning[edit]

Your recent editing history at UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi SithLordSparklePants (fancy username, you have there!)

I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. I am not an administrator.

Thanks for disclosing on your userpage that you are a UNC alum.

Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages conflict of interest. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, SithLordSparklePants. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do.

The disclosure piece is done, at your Userpage and at the article talk page. That's the first step.

The second step is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on UNC subjects? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please respond to the message above? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another try[edit]

It is very obvious that this account is a sockpuppet of, or working closely with, Spartan1977. Would you please explain?

There is a way forward here but only if you come clean. The alternative is that both accounts will likely be indefinitely blocked under our WP:SOCK policy.

We do love experts in Wikipedia, but not when they use their editing privilges for self-promotion or to promote their employer. Lots of experts have contributed to Wikipedia without doing that. (see WP:EXPERT) Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, wow you must have a lot of time on your hands. I am just trying to edit the Eshelman School of Pharmacy page, no conspiracy here. I have clearly outlined by COI and proceeded accordingly. Sorry I have better things to do than regard your conspiracies. SithLordSparklePants (talk)

Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Last I checked I was not a Sith Load nor an alumni of UNC. Sorry no conspiracy here. Spartan1977 (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. I am sure that the person operating this account is not sith lord either. With regard to the alum aspect, people misrepresent who they are all the time here. We have no way of verifying and don't rely on things like that much.

Also I acknowledge that you might be different people -- what I wrote was "a sockpuppet of, or working closely with". But thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No lightsabers or socks that I am aware of are being used. Let's drop the conspiracy and just be friends. The type of friends who don't write on each others talk pages and remove or flag each others edits. That would be nice.Spartan1977 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I am not an sockpuppet of Spartan1977.SithLordSparklePants (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is very clear abuse of Wikipedia for promotion, and the two of you are behaving how sockpuppets and meatpuppets behave. This has happened before, specifically with academics. It is ... unfortunate and entirely unnecessary. And above all, abusing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you opinion Jytdog. I am uncertain how information regarding a university would be conveyed if not by an alumni. The conflict has been noted, it is time for you to move on Jytdog. I think I have found out the collusion going on here, Jytdog, are you a Duke fan?SithLordSparklePants (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]