User talk:SJP89

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, SJP89. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place help me on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! 00:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Your post on Talk:Keith Davidson
If your Templates Added post had consisted of the This BLP is not written in a NPOV and One Source for 40+ citations paragraphs only, that would have appeared to be a genuine interest in improving the article. However, by adding the Potential COI  and Reminder: Administrator Accountability sections, you seem more interested in a battle. Your comments are confrontational and hostile. If your goal truly is to improve the article, I recommend that you retract your comments casting aspersions on other editors and work with Daniel Case on the content issues. Schazjmd  (talk)  23:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I honestly didn't intend to be hostile. I did make an assumption based on how the page had been referenced, its tone, depth, and balance that there was something personal going on with the article. Most of Case's articles are fairly benign - this one wasn't. I have removed the COI and explained why I added it. I was expecting - based edit history to get major pushback - I think his response was confrontational and hostile as well. However, I relent. I apologized. But I still think the article needs to be looked over and edited by other Wikipedians - his stance has been made clear on this topic. Thank you for your input. SJP89 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89
 * I honestly didn't intend to be hostile. I did make an assumption based on how the page had been referenced, its tone, depth, and balance that there was something personal going on with the article. Most of Case's articles are fairly benign - this one wasn't. I have removed the COI and explained why I added it. I was expecting - based edit history to get major pushback - I think his response was confrontational and hostile as well. However, I relent. I apologized. But I still think the article needs to be looked over and edited by other Wikipedians - his stance has been made clear on this topic. Thank you for your input. SJP89 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89


 * Thanks for removing that portion of your comment from the article talk page. Do you notice in your post to me above how you say I did make an assumption...? An important behavior guideline on Wikipedia is assume good faith; that's the assumption that you should start with in any interaction. If you give other editors an opportunity to work with you, rather than starting the conversation with the view of them as adversaries, you'll often get much better results. Daniel Case's response to you mirrored your approach to him — you got back what you put out there. I hope you can both overcome the initial antagonism.I did notice in your edit history that this isn't the first article that you've tagged for COI. I'd like to suggest that you focus on improving articles rather than assuming nefarious intentions by other editors. Claiming COI is an accusation. We can identify and discuss the shortcoming or issues in an article without casting other editors as villains.On the other hand, I do appreciate that you've used article talk pages to explain why you've removed or added tags; not all editors make that effort, so thanks for doing that. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining this to me. I didn't understand that a COI was considered an extreme accusation. When an article is being continuously edited with incorrect information i.e. "Schmidt's" or trolled by admins refusing to allow updates - I see this as a conflict. Despite this, I now realize that a conflict is not necessarily a conflict of interest. I will read more about COI today so I better understand it's meaning to the community and how I should or should not be using it. Per your explanation, I am not properly using it, I need to be more cautious, assume good faith, and need to be better informed. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. SJP89 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89