User talk:Jessicakhani

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jessicakhani, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Jessicakhani. Your first edit to WIkipedia removed an orphan and COI tag from Darrick E. Antell; it is actually impossible to fix an orphan issue (which means having a WL in some other article) with your first edit. You also did not fix the issues that result from conflicted editing.

This makes it appear that you have some real world relationship with Antell and came here specifically to remove the tags.

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, Jessicakhani. 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. 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[edit]

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. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. 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. Here in Wikipedia such disclosures must be made explicitly. Would you please disclose any connection you have with Antell? 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) 19:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are taking professional headshots of Antell—and you are claiming to be the photographer of File:Darrick Antell Photo.jpg, which is one—then you have a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You left me a message here -- please read the message above, and then reply here. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Darrick E. Antell. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Since you have not edited any articles other than this one, you can't have fixed the problem that the orphan template indicates. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Darrick E. Antell, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. You may not remove the COI tag, because you have a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Darrick E. Antell, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. You may not remove the COI tag. Further, do not remove the orphan tag until there are inbound links in other articles that point to this page. If you do not understand this message, ask for assistance; do not remove the template again. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred I am just trying to edit the date of the Town and Country Article since I am receiving a warning for it. JessicaKhani

I don't see any edits where you were just trying to edit the date. I see plenty of edits where you are stating your intent to remove maintenance tags where the problems still exist. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that said, the cover date of Town and Country appears to be March 1999, not March 1, 1999. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred I made the edits March 1999 based on the "acceptable" guidelines and got flagged for it. What did I do wrong?

The article is still flagged, because almost every time a citation exists in the article, the punctuation is misplaced. Periods and commas go before the ref tag, not after. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning[edit]

Your recent editing history at Darrick E. Antell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I am just trying to edit the date of the Town and Country Article since I am receiving a warning for it. JessicaKhani

If you had only edited the date, you wouldn't have been warned. You're getting warned because you keep removing maintenance templates without addressing the underlying issues (no links from other articles and references that need repaired to put the punctuation in front of them, in particular). —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing warning[edit]

You are not replying with regard to the COI issues here. This is not something that you should avoid. It is very clear by now that you have some connection to Antell, and if you care about the practice of medicine at all, and publishing about it, then ethically you need to start caring and learning about conflicts of interest.

You are creating a completely unnecessary problem by not responding about this. There is a place for conflicted and paid editors in Wikipedia, but you need to work with the system we have for managing that.

Hello Jessicakhani. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jessicakhani. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jessicakhani|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred Jytdog I am not being compensated in any way for my edits. I have just started using wikipedia and I have not replied to messages because I am still learning how to use this. User:Jessicakhani

C.Fred Jytdog Can I make the updates to the punctuation and get rid of that warning?

Please disclose any connection you have with Darrick E. Antell ‎ - that is what the original inquiry above asked you for - being paid is just one form of conflict of interest. Your behavior is completely typical of a conflicted editor and is inexplicable otherwise. Please disclose any connection you have. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred Jytdog Dr. Antell did surgery on my mother. I have met him only on the day of surgery, and her follow up visit, but she said wonderful things about him. We noticed he had a wikipedia page that could use some editing and I wanted to update it since he took such good care of my mom.

C.Fred Jytdog Can I make the updates to the punctuation and get rid of that warning?

You are on the edge of getting blocked for edit warring. Please take your focus off of the article and please pay attention to what you should be doing.

Being a "fan" is actually the only other reason why somebody would behave as you have been doing.

So please understand that editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is made available to everyone, but when people behave as you have, we restrict or remove those editing privileges. This is not facebook or some blog where you can just try to force your changes in.

For starters, there are norms for using talk pages (like this one) that are as fundamental as "please" and "thank you" -- we thread comments by indenting them, and we sign our posts.

When you reply to this, please put two colons in front of your post (which will indent it one more time than mine) and please "sign" by typing four tildas at the end. The Wikipedia software will convert the two colons into two indents, and the four tildas into a "signature" with your username and the date and time of your post. Once you do that, I can start to explain some other ways that Wikipedia works. One step at a time. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I wasn't trying to forcefully make changes, I've genuinely thought I made the changes that were needed and wanted to update the page. Please let me know what I can do next. Per the March 2018 thread, I made changes to the punctuation as instructed so I removed the warning thinking that was all that was needed. The format for "March 1999" was written in the wiki guidelines as acceptable, I am not sure why this is being flagged. Jessicakhani (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)JessicaKhani[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to indent and sign! When you reply to this, you will see that I have put three colons in front, to indent yet another time. When you reply, you should put four colons. We keep doing this until it gets silly and then "reset" to the margin using {{od}} (that stands for "outdent") at the front which creates a bent line tying the comment to the one above.

With regard to the punctuation, that specific flag has been addressed now.

You were unambiguously doing what we call "edit warring" which means continuing to make changes even though they were being reverted, instead of going to the article talk page (which is at Talk: Darrick E. Antell) and asking what is wrong and understanding it, and coming to agreement about what is correct, before you kept trying to make the changes. (Your block request will probably fail, because you don't show an understanding of what you did wrong. The problem was that you kept making the changes instead of stopping and discussing until there was agreement about what was correct)

People who are fans, as well as people with conflicts of interest, behave in this same way. What is important to them, is their real world interest in the subject, and they ignore other editors in their urgency to make whatever changes they want.

Above I linked to User:Jytdog/How, which I generated in order to provide a one-page guidance for new editors that explains the mission of Wikipedia as well as the key policies and guidelines. Would you please read it? Once you do, we can talk about the remaining flags on the article and what needs to happen in order for them to be removed. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Thank you for sharing. I've read the key policies and guidelines and am ready for next steps. Jessicakhani (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Jessicakhani[reply]

OK.. so how you do you understand that conflict of interest editing harms Wikipedia and runs counter to the mission of Wikipedia? (in other words, what work needs to be done to fix the article and remove the "COI" tag?) Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog If I understand correctly I must submit a template of changes according to wikipedias guidelines and I may not make any edits to the page myself. Please let me know if I've missed something. Jessicakhani (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)jessicakhani[reply]

That is what we ask people who have a conflict of interest to do. But the question is about what kind of changes need to be made, to clean up the article and remove the COI tag. The question I am asking, is what is wrong with the article and how can it actually be fixed? (If you can't reason your way there based on your understanding of the mission and policies and guidelines, please ask :) ) Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog It seems as though I can add a general COI tag on the page and request peer review once any additional changes are made. It seems there isn't a lot of information available on wikipedia about Dr. Antell's practice, but the changes I submitted were all I wanted to include. If I come across any other relevant information I might like to include it. It seems as though taking the steps I've just mentioned should remove the COI tag. Jessicakhani (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)JessicaKhani[reply]

That's not what needs to happen in order to remove the COI tag. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog could you please elaborate further? It seems I've misunderstood something. Jessicakhani (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)JessicaKhani[reply]

The mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles to the public that provide neutral (in our sense of that word, which means "accurately summarize what independent sources say, giving emphasis as they do") information to the public. Conflicted editors and fans don't care about that - they want to create pages that say how Great the subject is. That is not what we do here and violates the WP:PROMO policy. The page was originally created by someone who very obviously is affiliated with Antell and was an advertisement. (This happens a lot with Wikipedia articles about plastic surgeons and many other businesses - far too many people see Wikipedia as a platform for promotion and we are constantly cleaning up after such people) The Antell page has been cleaned up a little to remove the worst, but for this page to be an actual encyclopedia article somebody is going to have spend the time to go and find good quality independent sources and bring content from them -- good or bad, whatever it is -- to the article. That takes time and a focus on Wikipedia's mission, not on creating a fan page or advertisement. So the correct answer is something like - "I will spend time to look for high quality independent sources that are about Antell (not just passing mentions of him) and once I find several I will read them and summarize them, giving weight as they do. I will make sure there is nothing promotional in the content. After I do that and whole article is OK, the COI tag can be removed" Something like that. This is the same thing that the message at Talk:Darrick_E._Antell#COI_tag says. This will be a challenge for you, since you are clearly a fan.

Pretty much everybody comes to WP originally due to some passion, and that passion is a double-edged sword -- it drives people to contribute but it can also drive them to contribute in a biased way. Your start here is not unusual -- you were however a bit more dogged than most in ignoring other editors (which is why you were blocked). Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I am not looking to promote Antell's practice. I am being labeled as a fan, but Antell's credentials have gotten him to where he is. I have seen other plastic surgeons pages who have done far less than him and have a lot of information on wikipedia. I am happy to provide high quality sources with additional edits, but I do not believe the sources I provided are poor quality either. On my submission from yesterday, I do see some typos, and would like to update that text a bit, but I am not sure how to go about that now. Will I need to cite myself as a COI or is this already done? I would also like to appeal my block as I am trying to understand what needs to be done, and I would like to do it correctly. Jessicakhani (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Jessicakhani[reply]

Your behavior showed that you are a fan or conflicted, and you disclosed above that he treated your mom and was "wonderful", which I am accepting as the actual reason you are here (many people lie in Wikipedia but as I said I am willing to accept what you wrote). I don't know what other pages you are looking at in WP about plastic surgeons but they are likely promotional as well - beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- Wikipedia content is wildly uneven due to our open nature.

The block was for 24 hours. You can wait that out or again request an unblock. If you start to edit war again after you are unblocked either way, the block will be much longer. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog can I ask you to take a look at the suggested edits to Antell's page and let me know if they are approved / if I've done them correctly? I followed the submit review instructions. Thank you! Jessicakhani (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)JessicaKhani[reply]

you posted that on the article. it goes on the talk page. I moved it there. I have some thoughts but there are others who will swing by and review them. it is better to get other voices involved. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Darrick E. Antell. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jessicakhani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my block as it is no longer necessary because I understand what I am being blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead Jessicakhani

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jessicakhani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my block again as I understand that making edits forcefully is not allowed and I will not attempt to forcefully make edits again. I understand that removing article issues without resolving the problem is not allowed. Additionally, I will not remove article issues in the future, rather I will allow other collaborators to do this. Moving forward I will suggest edits for the page in question, and not make edits myself. Jessicakhani (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Jessicakhani[reply]

Decline reason:

The block's over now anyway. I hope you can avoid being blocked again, so be careful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Before I unblock, ~~can you disclose if you have any connection with Darrick E. Antell which could give you a conflict of interest~~? Furthermore how will you adhere to the WP:COI guideline in future? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you are discussing this higher up the page, so I will do some reading and consider further. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of WP for advertising[edit]

All you are doing is abusing your editing privilges to promote Antell.

If you directly edit any article in WP again, promoting Antell, I will seek an indefinite block on your account.

For what its worth, I no longer find the "grateful patient" story credible. You have run out of WP:ROPE with me. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I wasn't aware making direct edits to other wiki pages was not permitted. For pages I directly edited, there were no "requests to edit" on the affiliated talk pages, so I did not follow the same protocol I was asked to follow on Dr. Antell's personal wiki page. To his page, I made an edit suggestion on Dr. Antell's edit page like I was asked to. I am looking for other editors to contribute to this page so the content is not only my own in order to make the page more credible. I'd like to ask that this flag be taken down since there has been a misunderstanding.Jessicakhani (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Jessicakhani[reply]