User talk:LZPanther

April 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. (Roundish ⋆t) 00:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that my edits were being disruptive. Have added references and some career text. Can you help me understand the mistakes I am making? LZPanther (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Reid Lyon, you may be blocked from editing. (Roundish ⋆t) 00:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding "Dr." to the article. It is unnecessary. --(Roundish ⋆t) 00:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to be accused of vandalizing Wikipedia. I am so sorry for apparently editing, adding references and incorporating new text In the wrong way. Can you advise on how I can correct what I am doing wrong?

I have deleted Dr. LZPanther (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am reaching out to Roundish*t once again following up on the not to me that I vandalized my Wikipedia page. As I mentioned in my last response all edits were in good faith and applied to achieve greater clarity and to ensure that career highlights were referenced for validation and reliability. Likewise, I added references where appropriate to provide such documentation.

i will comply gladly and unconditionally to any recommendations that you make. I need to know the exact nature of the vandalism that you identified so I avoid disruptive edits and other mistakes in the future. I have studied the guidelines and rules governing the editing of Wikipedia pages and will abide by these directions.

again, I would benefit from understanding which of my edits were disruptive and/or constituted vandalism.

sincerely

panther1 LZPanther (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not seeing your replies --

Wikipedia policy is that you should not be using Dr. in articles. See MOS:DOC, the policy page on this. Also note that if someone reverts your edits, you should not be immediately restoring them with no explanation. Use an edit summary for clarity. (Roundish ⋆t) 15:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. If any info is reverted I will not add back. Please let me know if I need further guidance. As mentioned I am much more familiar with the editing guidelines and rules. LZPanther (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, LZPanther. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Reid Lyon, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback very sorry that there appears to be a COI. CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHERE IN THE ARTICLE THIS SEEMS TO BE THE CASE. THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. I HAVE BEEN ADDING EXTERNAL (not first person references)independent and objective citations including references from NY Times, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, etc. I was under the impression from reading the guidelines that these and other independent sources are acceptable to ensure the veracity of the content. Am I off base.

Panther I LZPanther (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that is the wrong question. I understand you'd like to know how I thought there was a COI, but my question for you strikes me as more relevant, and I cannot let you evade it: do you have a COI?

For what it's worth, any editor who sees this edit may well wonder how you got all this information. Plus, of course, that information is not neutral (it's there to praise the subject), and it's not encyclopedically relevant--it's relevant on a personal website, for instance, but not here. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I will provide only citations that support the original article, remove all extraneous personalized information. I am hopeful you will review and advise.

In the original article there were statements of facts without validating citations or incomplete citations. Simply, many citations provided did not provide complete authentication and others were required to provide full trustworthy and objective evidence from objective sources. If a reader is perusing an article, assumes that major points are supported through objective sources, what are the consequences of citing a tangential reference that falls short of external validation. This can be rectified by adding citations which provide comprehensive coverage of the text item in question. That is what I am trying to accomplish. LZPanther (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you still haven't answered the question. That refusal suggests you do have a conflict of interest, and you just will not disclose it. I see no option but to block you from editing the article until you do, leaving the talk page open for suggestions. (Actually, I do have one other option, and that is to block you altogether: see WP:UPE). Drmies (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a conflict of interest given I am adding to an article about myself which is why I removed edits made following the original article generated by a third party. I will certainly respect any decisions you Make.

How should I proceed? LZPanther (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to explain that I thought it permissible to edit an article about yourself that another source contributed. My edits we all in good faith to provide more complete information and additional citations to reinforce accuracy. You will note that any additional information I added was referenced to external sources to ensure accuracy. Before your block I was attempting to provide external citations where indicated by an editor. My military records are available through the National Archives and the Military Service records facility in St. Louis. I am not sure where the original article author(s) obtained my military history but the official reference should be to the National Archives.

The requested citation for the use of my research in informing policy can be found in the Reports by the NY Times, the LA Times, the Baltimore Sun, etc already referenced. The cited congressional testimony was vetted by NIH, HHS and the White House and provided under oath. Each written testimony provided in the current citations are published by the Congressional Printing Office. These cites already in the article can be used as references for the science to policy statement in text.

Thank you again for your guidance.

Reid Lyon LZPanther (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Reid Lyon) for undeclared paid/COI editing.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]