User talk:Mldallie

Welcome!

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

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was James W. Pennebaker, 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 another 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 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.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

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, visit the Teahouse, 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! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My minor additions were factual, and I cited neutral, publicly available sources for them. I didn’t add anything subjective or even very substantive under Research—I only made that section more readable and added references for vague claims that were previously uncited.

Can you explain why I was judged to have a conflict? Was it only because I rarely edit Wikipedia? This certainly isn’t encouraging more contributions.

For example, how was adding the emeritus status or citing the APS election announcement biased? Or adding a few highly cited papers from the last 24 years? Before my edits, the most recent article was from 2000, which bizarrely ignores half of his career.

Mldallie (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait:

> because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article

Am I suspected of being James W. Pennebaker? I am not. Nor is he my boss. I’m not sure what it would mean to represent him. Do retired professors have personal PR people? That’s also not me.

Is there something suspicious about my name? Please explain why you cheerfully undid hours of my work (somehow, yes, those minuscule edits took hours; my Wikipedia editing skills are quite rusty, as you can see by my edit record).

Mldallie (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mldallie, I sent this message due to the amount of resume-like content you added to the article. This is often an indication of promotional/COI editing. I'd also suggest reading Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. No one has undone your edits other than yourself, as far as I can tell. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a bullet point list of faculty positions (i.e., resume-like content) in the article. I didn’t want to meddle too much, so I left that section mostly as it was but tried to make it a bit more readable with sub-bullets. I did consult his publicly available CV for clarification on the wording of one of his seemingly many Bush-related positions (turns out it was just two, but more than you’d think). I don’t see how slightly updating the wording of a years-old position he’s now retired from reads as promotional (self-promotion or otherwise).

I am a fan of his work (most Wikipedia article contributors like the things they edit/write about, I assume, so I hope that’s not a COI!), but I’m not especially biased nor did I attempt to turn his bio into a hagiography. In fact, I’ll be happy to add a small replicability section if that wouldn’t be too nonstandard (e.g., effect size debates, null effects for some LSM findings).

For what it’s worth, I only made these edits now (after 12-13 years of not paying attention to this page) because I just heard about the recent APS election. It seemed odd for the president-elect of a large, prestigious association to have a relatively neglected Wikipedia page.

Finally, are my edits *not* actually under threat? They seem to be intact. Yet your message said “your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.” Please clarify.

By the way, I plan to add a page for Leon “Buttons” Kirkbeck soon. To preempt any worries or skepticism: I am not Buttons nor do I represent him. Just a fan of his Cryptid podcast.

Mldallie (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]