65.28.236.17

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Tisha Campbell-Martin. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (65.28.236.17) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! JesseRafe (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello, I'm Sakaimover. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sthavira nikāya 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. Sakaimover (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You should use edit summaries in the future to avoid possible problems such as these Sakaimover (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

True but you could also take a moment to look at what you are reverting before doing so. You basically just aided a copyright violation because you assumed an IP couldn't possibly be doing something productive. 65.28.236.17 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Research for the public good

Hi 65.28.236.17,

I understand your concern about soapboxing. I am a researcher with expertise in the particular areas that I have edited, and I believe I have done so in a rather independent and objective way. Although I have referenced my own work in updating these sections (which very much need updating), this is because these sections relate directly to my field of knowledge. According to Wikipedia's rules as I read them, limited amounts of self-citing are allowed under certain conditions, and I don't think I've overstepped them (but perhaps, this is because I am starting out). Even in the worse case, that my intent would be self-promotion, the resources that I have added link to hundreds of other resources and have been independently validated by peer review experts. Pardon if I have overstepped the line, this is my first time attempting to edit Wikipedia. Having quite a few hours of work lost is not exactly motivation to continue further updating this pages with other needed references (which I had planned to do at a later date, it's just that it's very time intensive when you are just starting out).

As for the podcast edit, I did not mean to self-promote there (I added my name simply copying as others have done). The podcast is non-commercial and is a purely academic resource. Notable guests include leading digital campaigners for example, the Trump, Rand Paul, and Barack Obama campaigns. I figured a write-up in the Guardian as a "podcast of the week" was worthy of being notable, but again, excuse me if my novice status has led to a breach of rules.

If you understand my concern, I'd appreciate another editor coming in to weigh which edits are spam/self-promotional, and which (if any) are notable and objective contributions. I can say in full faith that I think my edits contribute to the pages (and Wikipedia as a whole) by updating and adding independent, scientific research into the encyclopedia. My investment in the edits is not self-promotion, but injecting the state of the art in academic research into Wikipedia.

Thank you,

SoMeGuRu

@SoMeGuRu: So far you have yet to make an edit that didn't use your own work as a reference. WP:COI is a guideline here that says you need to disclose your conflict of interest and to avoid editing articles where you have a conflict of interest. You aren't doing any of those things. 65.28.236.17 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@65.28.236.17: Thank you for your response. I have cited others alongside me, and my first serious attempt at a substantial edit was deleted. Wikipedia states that it is not a COI if:

"Employees at cultural and academic institutions: We want experts editing Wikipedia articles. Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest."

Regarding self-published sources:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Please advise how to proceed.

Best,

SoMeGuRu

@SoMeGuRu: You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. You are selectively reading the guidelines. Your employment isn't the issue: the issue is the fact that you are promoting your own work throughout Wikipedia by adding your own papers.

How you should proceed is to actually read WP:COI specifically WP:COIEDIT and WP:PAY. You should openly admit your conflict of interest and you should limit yourself to making suggestions on the talk page instead of adding your own work to articles. 65.28.236.17 (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

---