User talk:Sarmccord

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:Sarmccord

Hello Sarmccord, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Sarmccord, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Y9ou may blank your talk page but it will not be deleted. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nycfacedoc.com

Hello Sarmccord, can you describe your affiliation with NYC Face Doc? All your drafts contain references to their website. This is not a reliable source, because they are a self-published commercial blog. Please do not add citations to their website. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no affiliation with this site. Sarmccord (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note our conflict of interest policy (more info below). Are you avoiding editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors? Yes or no. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am avoiding editing or creating articles that would be deemed a conflict of interest. I have no affiliation with the subject I wrote about. I have a particular interest in nasal anatomy, nasal breathing, and nasal health. I have found this to be a niche subject on wikipedia that I wish to build my wikipedia career around. The subject previously reviewed is an expert in the area of nasal breathing, which was why I began with his biography. I plan on creating articles for many different experts and many other pathophysiological subjects relating to nasal breathing. I am new to wikipedia, but was not anticipating such antagonism. Sarmccord (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nasal Valve Collapse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nasal Valve Collapse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasal Valve Collapse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Sarmccord. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Moustafa Mourad, 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 article subjects 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 {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: External nasal valve collapse (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jlwoodwa was:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
Essay-like writing
Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
Close paraphrasing

Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:External nasal valve collapse and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

jlwoodwa (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sarmccord! Having an article draft 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! jlwoodwa (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for denying a clear conflict of interest.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins, this is a COI VRT block,ticket:2025042510010414. Sarmccord, this is a block based on off wiki information communicated to the Volunteer Response Team, of which I am a member. I am not allowed to provide this information publicly, but I can say that it directly contradicts what you have said above regarding a conflict of interest. This type of block has a very limited number of people who can review unblock requests for it(checkusers and the three other COI VRT members), so an appeal may take time to be reviewed. You may also appeal this to the Arbitration Committee- see WP:ARBCOM for how to contact the Committee. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Sarmccord. Thank you for your work on Nasal valve collapse. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this article. I've combined it with the other recently-created stub, as the two related topics are best discussed together. Even so, it could do with some expansion. I've linked it from other pages too, something that helps readers to find this content.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the same for the stub Facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. Klbrain (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the reason for my block and I apologize for my previous actions. I now have a better understanding of Wikipedia’s policies regarding reliable sourcing, neutrality, and conflict of interest. I will follow all guidelines moving forward and will edit in good faith. I respectfully request that you reconsider the block and allow me to contribute constructively. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You can start by declaring your conflict of interest. There's absolutely no chance of an unblock until you completely and openly disclose that. Yamla (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2025 (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.

Assuming you were lying before, you'll also have to explain why we should trust you now, when you worked so hard to demonstrate you cannot be trusted. --Yamla (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Yamla.

I would like to clarify that I do not, in fact, have any conflict of interest to declare. I am not affiliated with NYC Face Doc, or any related entity.

I understand that I may have used non-primary or promotional-looking sources while drafting content, which understandably raised concerns. My intent, however, was to build out niche Wikipedia content around nasal pathology and topics. I viewed the physician in question as a respected and potentially notable figure in facial plastic surgery and rely heavily on his content, and was using public information and his own published work as a reference point for constructing content that I believed met Wikipedia’s standards.

That said, I now recognize how my approach may have appeared, and I appreciate the importance of avoiding even the appearance of promotional editing. I’m committed to using stronger, independent secondary sources and adhering to all Wikipedia content and sourcing policies moving forward.

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

I have verified you are attempting to mislead us. It is simply not the case that you are completely unaffiliated with NYC Face Doc. I very strongly oppose ever lifting this block, given your statements here. --Yamla (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]