User talk:SallySands

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, SallySands. 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, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate 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).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

 * For the reviewing admin; as far as technical evidence is concerned, if there is a connection between the accounts, it is more likely to be WP:MTPPT as opposed to the same user creating multiple accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See . Posting as FavorHamilton, she said "Yesterday, I, with the help of my husband, added material." Then this account shows up, adding the same thing. She and husband are editing together. Meat or sock, it's still puppetry. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To help assess your request for an unblock, are you willing to answer the following questions?
 * Do you have any connection to the person you have written about? Do you know her? Are you editing on her behalf, or in consultation with her? Have you edited in collaboration with any other Wikipedia editor? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First edits ever are to add back in material about bipolar disorder to "explain" becoming a prostitute? WP:DUCK likely applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Odd that just a couple of days ago she posted "I don't have a publicist or a social media expert." If you do this professionally, you should acquaint yourself with the COI policy I linked for you, including the part about paid editing. Additionally, you might want to read WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCATE. Information about BPD mostly goes in that article about it. The article is a bio about Favor, not her positions on BPD or how she thinks it led to her becoming a prostitute. Adding well sourced material about her athletic performances shouldn't be an issue. However, one edit I did note (that was very similar to Favor's own edit) is trying to minimize how she intentioanlly faked an injury in the 2000 Olympics. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the individual you have blocked works for a company that runs my website. They are not a publicist or social media expert. I told them how I was cited for conflict of interest intending to add to what had become a page completely devoid of my running accomplishments and bipolar disorder, and has sat that way for 3 years, and they said they could do the edits. I said wonderful. There was zero ill intent. Zero. It appears they simply looked at the edits I had done via history, and used them as they saw they were all verified. Also for the record, to deny the fact that I live with bipolar disorder and it's relevance in some of my actions is ignorant and a subjective view of the editor. Finally, the edits I attempted to make a few days ago, before learning that my doing so is an apparent conflict of interest (despite that everything I added was sourced), certainly did mention my falling intentionally in Sydney. The "feigned injury" language you use is your error and slander. I did indeed run that race with a broken ischium bone. There was no feigned injury you speak of. And please answer me this, where were you when people were editing away all of my running accomplishments Niteshift36? User:Favorhamilton —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So they're editing on your behalf, which makes them a meat-puppet. Same thing. Claiming that the article is devoid of you achievements is false. The lead tells you were in 3 Games. The infobox not only lists your medals in international competitions, it gives a visual representation of them. There's a section marked "career" that talks about your achievements. Now, if there is more to add, that's fine. Nobody will complain as long as it is reliably sourced by reliable sources (not your website). They also need to be neutral. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional article. It should never sound like it's written by a fan. Nobody is denying you are bipolar. But again, this is not an article about bipolar disorder, so going into explanations about what BPD may do or what not is in the wrong place and looks like an attempt to make the prostitution look different. Before I talk about the "feigned injury" comment, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Two things you need to know: 1) The written word is libel, not slander and 2) Wikipedia has a very strict stance against legal threats. Consider reading that policy before you start throwing around (incorrect) legal terms again. Now, "feigned injury" is the exact wording the BBC used in the cited source. We cite the source, not make up our own. If you have an issue with the wording, talk to the BBC. Beside, "feign" means to simulate or fake.....You told People magazine "I pretended I was injured". Pretend=feign. The NY Post says you "faked" it. Fake=feign. Runners World says "faked" . Faked=feigned. Fox LA says "fake" . And many more. the only ones I see using any other excuse are ones quoting you (making you the source). So I invite you to take your complaint to the WP:ANI and see who they agree with. If you have further issues about the content of the article, it should be discussed at the article talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, not familiar with many of these terms you use such as meat puppet, sock puppet, etc. and I have never edited a Wikipedia article before, so again, no ill intent. My assumption, although obviously incorrect now, was that having someone other than me do edits would be permitted. Just saw an article that I found entirely lacking and biased against me and tried to do something about it since Wikipedia is often a go to source for many and since nobody else is willing to remedy it apparently. It is missing about 90% of my achievements. I also feel it should have a little something to say on what I am doing today, no? Best selling book. Not important? Mental health advocate? Not important. So yeah, there's more to add, (but it does have in there that I was a volunteer assistant coach at one time for some reason???) and you know that very well as indicated by past discussion you had with others who made that quite clear as you were having what was termed an "edit war" over my article. And NOTHING as far as achievements by the way, came from my website as you claim. It came from a Runner's world article, and a bio on the USATF website. Do you think I control that in some way? Take a look at the Runner's World article I cited. then take a look at what is listed in the article. Based on your comments and tone I have seen throughout, I feel you are biased (anti-sexworker (I know you prefer prostitute) / uneducated re: mental illness, etc.) That's just my feeling. The article as written is slanted unfairly to the negative. How did all of my achievements disappear? I asked you that earlier and you didn't answer. So now we wait, for someone to add info that ought to be in the article. Based on the fact that it went untouched for 3 years like this Do you have any suggestions, other than what I tried to do which was make a wrong a right? My guess is just wait and put up with it. User:Favorhamilton —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, the place you should be discussing the content of the article is on that article's talk page. Not here. Sockpuppet is One person operating 2 (or more) accounts. Meat puppet is a person editing on behalf of another one. I'd actually be inclined to help, but since you've declared me "uneducated", clearly my help won't meet your standards. Too bad that you have fabricated half of that rant: Nobody said adding info about the book wasn't important. I've clearly stated there is probably more about your athletic career that can/should be added. I didn't claim it came from your site, I preemptively pointed out that your own site won't work as a source for that stuff. Some mention of your mental health advocacy might merit mention (as long as it's not being used as a platform or to publish original thought on how it made you turn to having sex for money). Stop hearing what I don't say. You have to keep in mind that the article is not there to sell you, promote you or act as a platform for you to frame your life. It's an encyclopedia article. It's also funny that you complain about my use of the word prostitute. The reliable sources use it, as well as "hooker". We went with "escort" in the article. There's nothing pejorative about the word "prostitute". It's factual, not biased. Once again, further discussion of content should go to the article talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I know you really want me to post this at the article's talk page, but you keep responding here, so everything there will have no context. I fabricated nothing. I declared you likely uneducated about mental illness. Most people are. I never declared you generally uneducated, and I'm sure you are a smart guy / gal. So let's not overstate. I base that feeling on you denying the importance of bipolar and misdiagnosis in the acts (prostitution) you so keenly do want emphasized. You thought the rate I charged was important, but apparently the fact that hyper sexuality is common in people with bipolar is not. I also see you say things like, "nobody is denying you ARE bipolar". Just like someone IS not cancer, or IS not heart disease, one IS not bipolar. One HAS bipolar. You still have not answered my question as to how my achievements disappeared in the first place. User:Favorhamilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.230.200 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're better off to start a new discussion there. You don't need to bring the context. Start it fresh. That will probably get input from others. You've fabricated plenty....one example is your claim that your book was not important. Nobody said that, you just made it up (fabricated means the same thing as made up in this context). You're actually quite wrong about my education, but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia isn't a forum for original thought. (BTW, when you see those links, click on them.) They go to the policy or guideline I'm referring to.  What you're failing to understand is that your biography is not the place to discuss your mental health issues in depth. Saying that it contributed to your choice to become an escort is about as in depth as it should go. The rest becomes a soapbox and platform for you. You have a bipolar disorder, making you bipolar. Like a person with diabetes is a diabetic or a person with epilepsy is epileptic. I understand the whole "the disorder isn't who I am" thing, but that's really not the issue here. You're clearly not reading the policies and guidelines that I'm linking for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You are overstating. I simply pointed out that there is nothing on my page about my book and it ought to be there by now. Not pointing the finger at you specifically. It just seems odd, no? And frustrating for a woman who looks at the page and sees a fraction of the achievements listed, and they have been removed from what was at one time a nice page. And the page is just woefully incomplete. That's maddening. That's the message I left on the talk page initially and the primary point I tried to make. Hopefully you can relate, at least a bit with that frustration. Will you at least answer the question I keep asking you? Why the achievements were removed in the first place. I'll be happy to go away after that. You seem to be the dominant editor of my page. So you're the source of my frustration. Perhaps that's not fair, but it is what it is. User:Favorhamilton —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What specifically was removed? You keep talking about "3 years ago", but when I look at the page as it was in Jan 2013 (3.5 years ago), it has even less than it does not. I went back to 2012 and it was less than it is now. . I went clear back to Dec 2012 and found what you were talking about . That's when another experienced editor (not me) finally noticed the amount of unsourced material. Having information reliably sourced is a core pillar of Wikipedia. Removing it was correct. And it was written like it was a promotion for you. That's not to say that much of that doesn't belong or can't return. It needs a good source and presented in a non-promotional way. For what it's worth, I think a section about the Nike commercial should be in the article (I loved that commercial), but entries listing what you did ads for probably doesn't belong unless it was specifically notable (ie Nike). BTW, for all the bias you think I have, I'm one of those that has removed it every time someone tries to put your escort work in the lead. You were notable before that and your primary notability is for your athletic achievements. You think I'm picking on you. I'm not. You have to learn the process and play by the rules. I've linked several relevant things for you and it's apparent you haven't read them. Instead, you've tried to tell me how uneducated I am while knowing exactly jack about me. I'd still be willing to help you improve the page, but you have to get comfortable with the fact that the page is not there to make you look good. It's there to present information in a neutral manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm just saying nobody has really touched this page since 2013, when I was outed.There was discussion that the page had gone to hell, and someone ought to step up to balance it out, and none did. Listen, we simply have different definitions as to what is plain old verified fact and what is there just to make me look good. I felt the way I wrote it, sure, it makes me look better, but it's all factual. I thought that would suffice, and others could add what they wish to balance things out. Obviously, you have indicated that's not how it works, and that's fine. I understand that. You can see my frustration though when I write what I wrote, and it's all removed due to COI. Again, I understand now how the rules work now. (And I have read the rules now, I just don't necessarily like them when they are dealing with me and my reputation, which I have worked so hard to repair. Certainly willing to have you help me improve the page if you are willing to do so. user:Favorhamilton —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any further responses will be at your talk page or the article talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)