User talk:Beardedpig

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

on Conflicts on interest
I just noticed that you are Jayson Harsin, the author of the paper you made an article about. This puts you in a tricky position- clearly, you can be considered an expert on your own work, but Wikipedia is meant to be balanced and not place undue weight on any one person's opinion. So, here is a standard message with some useful links and information in it.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Friday (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS WORKS. I DON'T SEE ANY CLEAR LINK FOR A RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU (NOT EVEN SURE IF THE "I" WHO JUST ADDRESSED ME HAS A CHANCE OF READING THIS). I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD WRITE THAT I NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT "NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW" AND THEN JUST DELETE MY CONTRIBUTION TO THE "RUMOR" ARTICLE. MY ARTICLE DEVELOPING THAT CONCEPT WAS PUBLISHED IN A PEER-REVIEWED COMMUNICATION AND POLITICS JOURNAL, AND THEN ONE YEAR LATER (JUST THIS YEAR) INCLUDED IN A MAJOR COLLECTION ON CULTURAL STUDIES SCHOLARSHIP, BOTH OF WHICH I CITED IN the section i developed. Why is this grounds for deletion? Someone who is a non-expert on the concept I developed is supposed to write the section in wiki, is that what you mean? I don't understand your behavior at all.
 * Well, maybe I was hasty. I put the stuff back in rumor for now.  We see lots of people who show up at Wikipedia only to promote themselves and their products or ideas, so I tend to be wary of anything that looks like this.  Maybe I'm way off base in this case.  Peer-reviewed journals are certainly good sources.  I started a deletion discussion on rumor bomb, because I'm still concerned that this is not yet an established concept.  It's possible that even if that article goes away, some of the content is still usable in rumor.  The general rule of thumb is that you shouldn't make an article about your own work- if it's really that significant, someone else who is not involved will do it. Of course, if you're talking about a legitimate academic using a peer-reviewed journal as a source, this changes things somewhat.  The problem with topics that are only discussed in one source is that it's difficult to be neutral in them.  Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OKAY, WHAT YOU SAY HERE MAKES SENSE. OF COURSE, THERE IS SOME SELF-PROMOTION. I WOULDN'T HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT IT, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED, AND THEN ALMOST IMMEDIATELY RE-PUBLISHED, IF I AND OTHERS DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT. BUT OKAY, I CAN RESPECT THAT YOU WANT WRITERS OF ARTICLES TO BE OTHER THAN THE THOSE WHO DEVELOPED AN IDEA THE ARTICLE WRITER IS DISCUSSING. SOUNDS BEST TO DELETE "THE RUMOR BOMB," AND LEAVE MY ADDITION TO "RUMOR," THOUGH I THINK I SHOULD DEVELOP THAT A BIT MORE, TOO. Beardedpig (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, since it's ok with you then, I'll just delete the rumor bomb rather than putting it through a long discussion. Sorry if I was too hasty- I certainly don't mean to put you off contributing here.  It's nice to see an academic adding content; it's a nice contrast to the more common case of 14-year-olds writing about their favorite cartoon characters.  Friday (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Springee (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)