User talk:Sebdubois77

Welcome!

Hello, Sebdubois77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was Blazetrak, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Widefox; talk 09:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Information icon Hello, Sebdubois77. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Blazetrak, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Please disclose if you are a WP:PAID editor. Widefox; talk 09:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Fatima Cody Stanford (2) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fatima Cody Stanford (2). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Fatima Cody Stanford (2) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fatima Cody Stanford (2). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fatima Cody Stanford (2) (December 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Tone is still praising the subject. Also please convert embedded links such as Discovery Channel to either regular Wikipedia links or citations.
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.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Sebdubois77! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Fatima Cody Stanford has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fatima Cody Stanford. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fatima Cody Stanford (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Excessive citations of authoring own articles. Should be combined into one or leave only a handful of the most representative work.
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.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fatima Cody Stanford (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Issues still haven't been addressed.
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.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fatima Cody Stanford (February 18)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Wolfson5 was: undefined
Wolfson5 (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Fatima Cody Stanford has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fatima Cody Stanford. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fatima Cody Stanford has been accepted

Fatima Cody Stanford, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fatima Cody Stanford

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fatima Cody Stanford requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://advances.massgeneral.org/contributors/contributor.aspx?id=1316, https://www.pri-med.com/globals/faculty/s/stanford-fatima%20cody, and https://www.abom.org/outreach-and-awareness-committee/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Information icon

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Sebdubois77, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sebdubois77|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I am not being compensated for my edits. This is why it has taken me over a year to revise this wikipedia page for Dr. Stanford that was live for several years before it was taken down. Sebdubois77 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not receive previous notification that it appeared that there was a financial stake at hand. This is quite hurtful indeed. Sebdubois77 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sebdubois77, thanks for your reply. Please have a look at the message posted in June 2013. Your edits, including uploads of images, indicate you may have a close connection to Stanford. Please note that no matter if you receive financial contributions or not, you do need to declare connections with the article subject under the Conflict of interest-policy. Thanks. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article you referred to in 2013 was not the original article I wrote on Dr. Stanford in 2018. The 2013 article was on a company. I have no conflicts of interest with Dr. Stanford, but I have followed her career, and I pulled the information for this article from her public CV noted here: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fatimacodystanford/files/fcs_cv_10.21_revised_0.pdf As you can see, this in over 100 pages of information that I have attempted to distill down into this article. I do not see where I should post that I have no connection with the subject. Please advise. Sebdubois77 (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2013 message does not apply only to the specific article mentioned there but your edits in general. The vast majority of your edits here have been the creation of an article for a company founded by Corey Stanford and an article on his wife Fatima Cody Stanford.
Please clarify what your relation to the Stanford family is.
This is relevant no matter if you receive financial contributions for your edits or not. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously, I have followed the work of these individuals. However, I have no relation (personal or private) with them. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Sebdubois77 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fatima Cody Stanford has been accepted

Fatima Cody Stanford, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Information icon Hello, I'm Sea Cow. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Roselyn P. Epps—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Sea Cow (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how this missing information about her spouse is not constructive. He is the former dean of one of the four black medical schools in the US. Is it not constructive since she was a Black woman? Or because he is a Black man? Or both? Sebdubois77 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is likely that Sea Cow is not watching your talk page, and thus not noticing that you replied with questions to them. Pinging them in the previous phrase so they will now be aware.
I am quite confident SC didn't act based on any such lowely motive. Instead they most likely reverted your edit as no reference to a reliable source was provided. Also it would be helpful if you could use edit summaries in the future. Btw the "minor edit" checkbox has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. It should only be used for e.g. a typo fix, formatting fix or reverting obvious vandalism.
You may reinstate your edit at any time provided you add a reference to a reliable source. Thanks for your contributions & happy editing :) – NJD-DE (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NJD hit the nail on the head. :). On another note, I would highly suggest you read WP:AGF before making such inflammatory, and possibly damaging remarks against another editor in the future. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sea Cow@Njd-de The source of my edit was Wikipedia. On their spouse's page, Charles H. Epps, Jr., there is a link to Roselyn Epps in Wikipedia. However, there was no spouse present on Roselyn Epps' page. Is Wikipedia not considered a reliable source for information? This was where this information was derived. Sebdubois77 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may sound strange but Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source as the content is user-generated. Therefore it cannot be used as source for other articles, see WP:CIRCULAR for more details. That's not an issue though: if you find the content on the first article has a reference to a reliable source, then verify with the source that it checks out and add the content as well as the reference to the second article. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will do @Njd-de Sebdubois77 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Fatima Cody Stanford

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fatima Cody Stanford, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]