This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Melanie Stansbury.

Hello, BiostatSci. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Melanie A. Stansbury, 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 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 WP:Spam);
• 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. KidAd talk 23:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kidad, Could you please check the COI tag that I put on the Talk page of the Melaniee A. Stansbury article to see if I have to add anything else to it? I wasn't sure whether I was supposed to edit the part on checking for neutrality. I didn't because I assume that is something that someone else needs to do. BiostatSci (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)BiostatSci[reply]

I will ping ferret. He blocked Desert Diva NM from editing the page and obviously knows more about WP:COI troubleshooting than I do. KidAd talk 05:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: I've cleaned up the tag, it's fine. Otherwise, as long as the content of the edit request looks neutral and well sourced to you, you are free to implement it on behalf of BiostatSci or Desert Diva. -- ferret (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Melanie A. Stansbury) for promotiona/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 ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend both you and Desert Diva read the COI template that's already been posted here. Conflicts of interest do not necessarily involve being directly paid to edit. You are volunteering and working for an organization that has a direct conflict of interest with Melanie Stansbury. The partial block is to enforce the COI guidelines. If you want changes, request them on the talk page with proper reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ferret, We are perfectly happy to work through a "reliable source". Would that be you, Kidad, or someone else? BiostatSci (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)BiostatSci[reply]

We're not reliable sources. We're just editors. The COI template points you to our core content policies, the second bullet of which focuses on Verifiability (WP:V) which covers the basics as well as linking to the guideline on reliable sourcing (WP:SOURCES). -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, so by reliable sources you are referring to sourcing the suggested edits with reliable sources. I thought your were talking about people to run our suggestions by, who would either approve or disapprove them. I think understand now how you were using the term. Is there any particular editor/administrator to whom we should make our requested edits? BiostatSci (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)BiostatSci[reply]

As noted above in the COI template under the bullet for propose changes, you leave messages on the talk page with the {{requested edit}} template. This parts the talk page into a category that is reviewed by editors who handle such requests. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor note: please don't add BiostatSci after the four tildes when signing your posts to discussion pages. That is, ~~~~ should be at the end of the post with nothing after it. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't know that the 4 tildas alone were needed BiostatSci (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlanM1, could you please review my above request for revision of the Melanie Stansbury article and offer any advice you might have about it. I want to edit it to improve the sourcing but am hesitant to do so without the advice of someone who knows Wikipedia protocol better than I. My modifications to my above suggestions would be along the lines indicated in the discussion below:

The Grid Mordernization bill has been discussed or reported in articles by the Albuquerque Journal, the PBS/NPR channel in Las Cruces, the Los Alamos Daily Post, the Daily Energy Insider, and was referred to in an AP article (The latter, does not explicitly mention the Stansbury bill. It is referring to the bill when it states that New Mexico will "take new steps to modernize the electric grid". It is not critical that this citation be added, but I think it does point to the importance of the Grid Modernization bill, if used in conjuction with other cittions of the other articles.). The bill is closely related to Governor Lujan Grisham's Energy Transmission Act (ETA), which is a major initiative of great importance in New Mexico and nationally (AP/St. Louis Post Dispatch, August 2020). I would like to point out the connection of Stansbury's bill to the ETA in my requested revision and to mention the national relevance of the ETA as written about in the St. Louis news paper. The ETA is being contested in court. This all puts the Stansbury bill in context and conveys its significance.

The Water Data Act also has been discussed/reported in reliable sources (e.g., the Los Alamos Daily Post and the New Mexico Political Report) and is a "building block" of Governor Lujan Grisham's grand "50-year plan" for water management in New Mexico; a very important issue in this state. The 50-year plan is the subject of AP/U.S. News and World Report and Albuquerque Journal articles.

I think the following is relevant to the article and would like to expand the section about her 2018 election to get it in, in the interest of neutrality: There is an article in the U.S.A. Today that draws national attention to the Stansbury vs Hall race in 2018 that draws national attention to the escalating infusion of out-of-state contributions to campaigns for even legislative seats. Stansbury received nearly 40% of her contributions from out-of-state, mostly from small donors. Jimmie Hall received about 33% of his from out-of-state corporate interests. This fueled criticisms of both candidates (not in reliable sources, though, as far as I know). These types of facts would make this article more interesting, informative and neutral (in the sense that it is one of only two articles that even hint at a criticism). I can offer a suggested edit that presents them in a neutral and balanced way. I just want the opportunity to do so with some confidence that the suggestion will not be summarily dismissed because of a relatively minor flaw or because of my COI. This will take a good bit of my time and I don't relish the thought of making revisions to my above suggestion that will be rejected because of my COI. I think they are factual, written in a neutral tone, and rise to Wikipedia standards. If they don't, then I have more to learn about those standards and would appreciate being further educated about them. Thank you for any consideration/advice/help you can provide. BiostatSci (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want someone to receive an alert directing them to a discussion page, start it with {{Re|Username}}. The only place this is unnecessary is on the person's own talk page, since they will receive notification of new messages there anyway (which is why I didn't do it here).

As far as the subject is concerned, I really try to avoid anything but purely technical work (and not even much of that) on some subjects, especially politics, so I can't be of much help. Sorry. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BiostatSci! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 14:45, Wednesday, August 26, 2020 (UTC)