User talk:Sippydog

Welcome!

Hello, Sippydog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Chris McDaniel does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Arbor8 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Chris McDaniel. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Arbor8 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McDaniel

I appreciate that you are editing in good faith, but there are a number of problems with your edits beyond words like "important legislation" and "accomplishments." For example, decisions about what information to include and to exclude can lead to undue weight problems or coatracking. Additionally, most of the sources you cite either constitute original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, or are otherwise not reliable sources. What concerns me most, though, is that a basic Google search reveals that you have a pretty clear conflict of interest with this subject. So I think the best course for now would be for you find a place on Wikipedia to contribute where you don't have such a conflict. Some helpful resources are linked in my welcome template above. Arbor8 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources I used are actual links to the specific legislation at the Mississippi Legislative website. As to my 'conflict of interest' I am certainly not unbiased, but all the information I have posted is factual and I removed the problematic descriptive language. Does this mean I have no ability to post anything on the subject matter? It would seem this defeats the purpose entirely. As to the reference to 'coatracking' (I had to look that one up, thanks. I'm learning) The referenced information is factual and is a list of Senator McDaniel's work in the topic area. If someone has an alternative fact they wish to publish, isn't that the way open source works? Thanks again.

This is becoming tiresome. The content you are adding and re-adding is promotional puffery and is decidedly unencylopedic. Please read up on WP:BLP and WP:3RR. Arbor8 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disagree, and I'm sorry you feel it is tiresome. But this is material that is properly attributed to a legitimate government source. It is not "puffery". The introduction of these specific bills have been debated in the Mississippi State Senate and/or have become law in Mississippi. They are a matter of public record.

Just because something is true is not sufficient reason to include in Wikipedia. Please read WP:TRUE. Arbor8 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sippydog. 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 Chris McDaniel, 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.
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 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.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. If you continue to edit war you are likely to be blocked. Please follow the advice you have been given. ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have gone to a more unbiased source and asked for a friendly edit to be sure my additions don't inadvertently do any of that. I have added nothing re: the opponent in the senate race. We are merely updating Senator McDaniel's bio material here. Thanks Again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sippydog (talk • contribs)

In view of your history of edit warring and your COI, please do NOT edit the article directly. Please use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed additions to the article with other users. And who is "we" - if you are sharing your account, please note that that is not permitted.--ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. I haven't shared it. I meant it as a general term. I have talked about these edits quite a bit. all of the info is properly cited and is a matter of public record. It's encyclopedic in nature as it lists the person work history. I've had others look over it prior to posting to make sure it isn't misleading. The only thing left is that their is an objection to my posting it. Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sippydog (talk • contribs)

See my explanation directly above. And please WP:SIGN your talk page comments.--ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]