User talk:Sampara 123

Socking?
You have made almost identical edits to. Are you the same person? Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC

No sadly not, here is a message I posted on your talk page:

Hi there,

I was doing some research on people from Australia who worked in Australia after seeing some articles about this in Australian entrepreneurship magazines. I noticed David Andrew Sinclair's page was not reflective of the publicly available information I saw online regarding him from the Harvard and University of New South Wales pages. Noted there were edits made the the page, but zero citations and so removed. Added citations in to the text from publicly available articles, and mainly University websites, but from memory removed honorific words like 'world leader' as those things are subjective. Is keeping a bio current based on information found from reputable sources like Harvard and UNSW websites allowed or does that information go in other sections of an article? Only editing as I had spare time and some citation articles I was compiling in research of various professors, happy to let you decide!

I could see previous edits by toggling prev and forward buttons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampara 123 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah you copied it here yourself - I was going to paste your note here and then reply to it.
 * Thanks for replying!  Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.  That is how we know who said what.  I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.  Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, you can see the "history" of any article by clicking where it says "View history" at the top of any page in Wikipedia - it is just to the left of the heart symbol, which is to the left of the search box in the upper right corner of the page. You can use the history page to create "diffs".  here is what Sumudu-perera did; here is what you did.   The two of you added the exact same content and the exact same image; you also included citations.  It is not credible that you are not the same person or not working together.  It is not believable. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment and for discussing Talk pages etiquette. Regarding your reply, what I meant to say is that yes definitely you can see history of previous edits, this is what I was trying to refer to but perhaps worded poorly. I wanted to check edits before making any of my own and noticed there was one done already that was removed. In the history page you can see both the image name and the text changes. I noted that I had citations for most of the elements of the text the other user had stated so decided to copy and paste most of it. I say most of the text, as there were some elements that I did not have citations for so removed them. All of the citations I used were publicly available sources! I can change the other user's wording if that is the issue, but I figured that would be too much effort for a paragraph that appears to be mostly filled with correct information (with my appropriate citations added in). Should these citations be elsewhere? Beyond this, I copied over the same image file the previous editor did (I copied the file name 'Lipofsky-633490.jpg' from the history page) however noted that it was cited as copyright, sorry for that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampara 123 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, you got the indenting part figured out but you forgot to sign. You  will get there!
 * So about what you wrote - thanks for explaining what you meant.  I hear that.   What I still don't understand is how it is that you came along so quickly after the other person... and that person suddenly has gone completely silent.   So strange.  I am not going to make a big deal out of this as long as the other account stays quiet.
 * So you made 3 kinds of edits.  You restored the picture, you added sentences to the beginning part (what we call the "lead"), and added references to those sentences.
 * About the picture, it was a copyright violation and it is now deleted from Wikipedia.  So that was no good.
 * About the sentences and references at the beginning -- please read WP:LEAD. All that section does, is summarize the article.  It doesn't need references, because everything in the lead, should already be summarized in the body of the article.  Does that all make sense? Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message regarding Lead paragraphs, interesting article! In the article you linked it it basically says that the lead paragraph is a concise, introduction to the article. It requires minimal citations as the information should be detailed throughout the paragraph, but in this case it isn't. I saw no mention of the information that was summarised in that lead paragraph in the article, so thought it was perhaps due to the lack of citations that it was deleted. If anything with the citations put in place, someone can come along and adjust the rest of article (or I can with time) to remove the need for the citations in the lead paragraph.
 * Whatever issue you had with the previous user, I do believe their paragraph had some merit to it, which was why I put references in. Is there a happy medium to be found? Or another place to put the information? If you look through the references I cited, you will see it is all publicly available information that is non-controversial so I believe it is only right that the information goes into the article somewhereSampara 123 (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in WIkipedia
Hi Sampara 123. Your edits here added content that was not in the sources cited. This is a key sign of someone editing with a conflict of interest.

I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Sampara 123. 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. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Sinclair or any entity with which he is affiliated, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I did a global Google search of David Sinclair and one of the things that came up was the mention of the Ageing journal. Further searching found the Ageing Wikipedia article itself which has his name in the Box (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_(journal)). The Wikipedia article states it was started in 2009. The article I cited here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/101508617) states it started in 2008 hence why I cited this. I am unsure to be honest which is correct, but the NLM catalogue is a trustworthy source so I opted for this date. I added this citation (http://www.aging-us.com/editorial-board) because it stated he was an Editor-in-Chief. Perhaps I placed the citations at wrong locations but did you read the citations themselves? I can find further citations itself but I thought the spirit of Wikipedia was to search for the answer together rather than blanket deleting anything and accusing others of things such as conflict of interest. Please have a look at the links I stated and you will see that this information is there.Sampara 123 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not like to disclose my personal identity as I am doing this editing out of recently looking Sinclair up as a scientist, but I will state I have no connection with Sinclair, however am in a field that is very interconnected (science while employing large numbers is also insular, most scientists will come across others work or have some collaboration somewhere down the line as they rise the ranks). I am trying to keep citations purely scientific or well trusted secondary sources as I find a lot of information on the internet may be hype etc, but there are also deficiencies in the current article that I would like to fill while the information I found is fresh in my mind. I would appreciate the peer review and the general orientation. Sampara 123 (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to say who you are. I am asking to close any connection you have with Sinclair or any of his companies, just like Sinclair discloses his COI when he publishes, like this: D.A.S. is a consultant to and/or inventor on patents licensed to GlaxoSmithKline, Ovascience, MetroBiotech, Arc Bio, and Liberty BioSecurity..  This is standard procedure in publishing. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, in that case, zero connection at the moment! But that may change in the future, would the case be then that I disclose as I go if future connections are made?Sampara 123 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is as not credible as you having no connection with the user whose edits you immediately followed and restored, but whatever. Do see WP:SPA btw.  All you have done in WP so far is try to add puffery and padding to one article, which has been subject to promotional editing in the past.  Anyway, see you at the article. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by puffery and padding, highly subjective words by the way. My most recent edits was a grammatical sentence structure change, and then most recently information regarding a Journal that was readily available on the internet. That included a link to the Wikipedia article itself, and one reputable outside source that had information regarding the website's existence. Again, I ask, did you bother to look at any of the citations I posted? Or make statements based on biases formed from information you had seen prior from other places? Sampara 123 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, you will note (again if you had bothered to look), that the information I had linked to regarding the Ageing Journal, was not all rosy. Stuff that appears right up your alley by looking at the edits you had made in the past on this article. Again if you had checked, you would have seen this. Regarding my edits on this page presently, yes I am aiming to finish one article at a time, rather than segment my time across various articles. The next person on my list is "Satchidananda Panda" from the Salk institute, who's Wikipedia page is still under approval of creation apparently after continual edit work by users, meaning a much more difficult task than editing a page that currently already exists.Sampara 123 (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Satchidananda Panda (January 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MadeYourReadThis was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Satchidananda Panda and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Satchidananda Panda, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Satchidananda_Panda Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MadeYourReadThis&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Satchidananda_Panda reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MadeYourReadThis (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)