User talk:Lacaligirl

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Lacaligirl. 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 which forms all or part of work 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.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Managing a conflict of interest

Excuse me Sir Sputnik while I thank you for your Welcome message I am confused as to why you are suggesting I have a COI (Conflict of Interest) on the articles that I was correcting? Is this standard procedure when someone joins Wikipedia? Please elaborate thank you!

There are two things. On your userpage you mention doing volunteer work with law firms on wrongful conviction cases, which suggests a possible connection to the Innocence Project and therefore a potential conflict of interest with respect to the article on Martin Tankleff. That paired with a few edits regarding undisclosed paid editing made think it important to make you aware of the guidelines on COI-editing. Read over the guidelines, follow them as they apply to you, and you'll be fine. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Sir Sputnik first and foremost I have nothing to do with Innocence Project and I was quite clear that I volunteer with various lawyers and law firms that work on Wrongful Conviction cases. I don't know why you would assume that or that I would have any type of conflict of interest with Martin Tankleff. I am well versed in his case as it made national headlines when I was in high school and his case has set many precedents in the legal community and continues to do so. In regards to edits that I have made - in which you reference "undisclosed paid editing" I am again at a loss here. Can you elaborate? I am very familiar with the guidelines on the Wikipedia community and if you look at my IP address edits, you will see that I have been editing for many years, I just recently created my User profile. I am also fully aware of the way that new members are to be treated. I thank you for being respectful unlike thisDoc James. Perhaps you could tell him to familiarize himself with these Wikipedia Guidelines. Please Do Not Bite the Newcomer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value. In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia (i.e., substantive edits); while insiders and administrators are responsible for a large bulk of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content.[1]

A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creativity and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are wanting or that they are simply "wrong".

If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake (e.g., forgetting to put book titles in italics), try to correct it yourself, but do not slam the newcomer. A gentle note at their user page explaining the Wikipedia standard and how to achieve it in the future may prove helpful, as they may be unfamiliar with the norm or merely how to achieve it. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is each person's responsibility to edit and complement, rather than to criticize or supervise others. If you use bad manners or curse at newcomers, they may decide not to contribute to the encyclopedia again.

A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticise.

If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out things that they've done correctly or well.

Newcomers may be hesitant to make changes, especially major ones, such as NPOV-ing and moving, due to fear of damaging Wikipedia (or of offending other Wikipedians and being flamed or being blocked). Teach them to be bold.

While it is fine to point a new user who has made a mistake towards the relevant policy pages, it is both unreasonable and unfriendly to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, Articles for Deletion discussions, etc., until they "gain more experience." This both discourages new editors and deprives Wikipedia of much-needed insights.

Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet."

How to avoid being a "biter"

Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context. It's a jungle in Wikipedia, and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a "biter". To avoid being accused of biting, try to: 1.Avoid intensifiers in commentary (e.g., exclamation points and words like terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, etc.). 2.Moderate your approach and wording. 3.Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations. 4.Avoid sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages, especially when reverting. 5.Strive to respond in a measured manner. 6.Wait and postpone editing as soon as you feel that you're upset. 7.Be gracious. 8.Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus. 9.Take responsibility for resolving conflicts. 10.Reciprocate where necessary. 11.Listen actively. 12.Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand. 13.Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them. 14.Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out. 15.Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcome to new users. Consider writing a personalised message.

Standard welcome/warning messages are both cordial and correcting. Consider using these templates for welcoming, or the first two here for warning.

Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, you will neither provoke nor be provoked easily, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building a truly collaborative encyclopedia.

Lacaligirl (talk)

Please do not reopen closed, much less archived sockpuppet investigations. If you have issue with Doc James' behaviour, please take it up with him directly. To answer your question above, by edits regarding undisclosed paid editing, I mean your edit to Marklen Kennedy and your comment on Ccawblake regarding Gigolos. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik All that I know is that my name was mentioned somewhere other than my User page by several people, I don't know what you mean by reopen a closed investigation - all I know is that I want my name left out of it. Is it commonplace for Contributors to be inappropriately spoken about, of and accused by someone just because I am a fan of a popular pop culture show Gigolos and saw immediately that there was a UDP warning on the Marklen Kennedy page as well as the Showtime Network shows page. What is next? Will Doc James be commended and allowed to place unwarranted UDP warnings on Showtime, NBC, History Channel, Universal Music Group pages as well? As an Editor I would feel that this User's behavior should be questioned more than anything. It is not difficult to see under the view history of the Gigolos page that ccawblake was essential to the creation of the page and he absolutely should be contacted and made aware of Doc James essentially attacking his credibility and work as well. Does this mean that anyone that makes any edits to the page is going to be flagged? Rather than pointing fingers, according to Wikipedia Guidelines to

Newcomers" Editors are supposed to make edits and corrections not drag people into an accusatory discussion on User Talk pages. Lacaligirl (User talk:Lacaligirl)

Sir Sputnik I respectfully request that you remove this as it could damage my future edits on Wikipedia: Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk - Given that Lacaligirl (talk · contribs) was registered to remove the UDP tag from Marklen Kennedy, we now have evidence that they're continuing to evade there block and the discussion above largely moot. Please check to confirm sockpuppetry. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Especially considering that I have provided the history of my edits dating back over two and a half years from my IP address. I was not registered to do any such thing - I caught on to Doc James aggressive behavior and ended up being attacked on an investigation I have nothing to do with. Kindly, also remove this other one in which you advise people to have a close eye on me. Unnecessary and I highly recommend that an Editor remove these constant UDP warnings that Doc James has been placing throughout Wikipedia on countless pages not just the ones on this supposedly closed sockpuppetry page. Given the CU result and Doc James' analysis, there doesn't seem to anything left to do here. Though I would recommend keeping a very close eye on Lacaligirl for COI concerns. Lacaligirl (User talk:Lacaligirl)[reply]

As you edit a page I am watching I thought I'd chime in. I am curious to know why you would copy and paste a whole section about not biting newbies giving the impression that someone is biting you and not being charitable, then you show a remarkable level of knowledge about CU paid editing for someone who only has a dozen edits to their name and now you are saying that you have been editing for 2 and a half years...so newbie or not newbie? You have to admit that this is very curious behaviour and taking into account your editing pattern you are setting off a whole load of alarm bells!!!Domdeparis (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Domdeparis thank you as well for making someone feel unwanted. Just because I have been a user for over two years as my IP address provides, that does not make me a self proclaimed expert. And with that being said, I in a way - do consider myself "new" because I am not an expert - that does NOT mean that it is okay for Doc James to accuse me of sockpuppetry and in fact, I am still not sure what CU paid editing stands for - so I'm not certain how you can state that I have a remarkable level of knowledge about it when I do not even know what CU stands for. Which is a clear violation according to Wikipedia Guidelines. The only truly respectful individual towards me has been Sir Sputnik in fact - I must state that I don't even think that your criticism is deemed warranted according to the guidelines that I found and copied and pasted. Lacaligirl (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't take it personally! Everyone is welcome!!! All constructive editors are welcome and wanted! But just to be clear here is a history of the problems with this page

It was created on 20/02/2017 by Dottie who joined on 24/01/2017 and had made no other edits except to their own user page.
The account Nikki was created on the 6/03/2017 and first edits were on this page
I tagged and cleaned it up and on the 8/03/2017
Dottie admitted to having been paid to create and edit this page on the 8/03/2017.
Dottie requested the page be moved to her sandbox so they could work on it on the 12/03/2017
Dottie made no edits to the page once it was in their sandbox (or to any other pages for that matter) but Nikki took over the editing
Nikki copied all the sand box and created an identical page for Kennedy on the 16/03/2017
Nikki was subsequently blocked for having made legal threats to an administrator on the 28/10/2017
Nikki appealed the block at 22:18 on the 30/10/2017 and mentions the lawyers in the law firm they intern at
your account was created at 22:23 on the 30/10/2017
The block appeal was refused at 22:24 on the 30/10/2017
Your first edit at 22:25 on the 30/10/2017 was to remove the undisclosed paid editor tag on the Kennedy page.

On your user page you firstly claimed to work for law firms across the country and then amended this to doing voluntary work for law firms across the country, as an intern maybe?

The major problem with this page is that the creator admitted having been paid to create it, they then disappear and other accounts that have made no disclosure (your's included) take over the editing and when this kind of thing happens the WP:DUCKTEST is often invoked. When you see an editor (Nikki) creating spammy articles (Richard Fertig) including unsourced information about his personal life the quacking gets louder and louder!!! Domdeparis (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is most certainly an odd way to make a contributor feel welcome. In regards to addressing your issues let me clarify a few of your many assumptions Domdeparis

I have no idea who these users Dottie and Nikki are.
I am a huge pop culture fan and an avid fan of the show Gigolos having watched it from the first season on Showtime. I am allowed to take interest in a show or a book and contribute to pages if it is a restaurant, a television show, it's producer, etc. It's a free world last I checked.
Great job for tagging and cleaning up the page - I'm assuming here that you are referencing Marklen Kennedy page.
Again, no idea who Dottie is, and or why I was brought into the mix and placed on a hawk eye watch. If she said she was paid what does that have to do with me?
Again, no idea who Dottie is, and I have never used Sandbox in any of my edits over the last two years on Wikipedia.
Is it possible that this Dottie person is just simply doesn't know how to edit on Wikipedia? And what does that have to do with me?
It appears to me in the archives of the Dottie Sock Puppet thread that legal threats to Doc James were unfounded. He claimed that they were made in an email and another editor said there was nothing left to do there. Then Sir Sputnik apparently closed out the investigation.
Again, do not know who this Nikki person is.
My account has been in existence for two years - all I did was create my Username, I have openly disclosed my contributions from my IP address earlier on this thread so no, I did NOT just create my account.
It seems this Nikki did appeal, and the user was instructed to refile the appeal. It seems to me the User was probably afraid to after this Doc James quite aggressively attacking her work.
No, as I mentioned now three or four times, my first edit was years ago on the Macy's page, please fact check before you, too assume.
Yes, I do volunteer work with law firms around the US, but not as an intern by any means. I am a Graduate of George Washington University Law School and an advocate for social justice and criminal justice reform in addition to educational reform and civil rights laws. In order to clarify any more of your assumptions, do you want me to send you my Graduate degree from George Washington University? But if you really must know I work in publishing.
If so many people have a problem with the paid creation then why won't someone fix it? As having followed the show for 7 seasons and an avid fan, and seeing that the creator is mentioned on several other pages on Wikipedia for his production work, isn't that what Editors are to do? Rather than destroy people's reputations on Wikipedia - be it the person the page is about or the User that created the page? It seems to me this is the exact opposite of "Innocent until Proven Guilty." Doc James seems to be well versed in Wikipedia despite having been blocked himself in the past, but feels most comfortable attacking character and work rather than contributing to the Wikipedia community. I have not followed or looked at (Richard Fertig) but I most absolutely will now. Are there any other pages that I should be looking at and watchingDomdeparis??!! (talk)

When I mention your first edit I am of course talking about the edit after the creation of your account. The IP edits are done anonymously and anyone using your computer to edit Wikipedia has the same IP address identification. I am sure that you have been editing for 2 years but as you haven't told us what your IP address was or which articles you have edited it's difficult to analyse your editing pattern, but I am very curious to know why you created your account specifically to edit this page and why would you want to remove this tag. As you say you do not know Dottie or Nikki so why would you want to remove this tag, what made you so sure that there is no unidentified paid editing going on? Now that I have explained why the tag was added and the very peculiar editing pattern on this article do you not think that it was justified? Seeing that you have no connection with the supposed undeclared paid editor (Nikki) maybe you would like to add it back again because it is very likely that this editor has taken over from a declared paid editor to get Kennedy's page on Wikipedia. Domdeparis (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]