User talk:NASAprobes88

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, NASAprobes88. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting 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. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty apparent that MrOllie is the one with a conflict of interest here. He ignores extensively cited material to impose his own personal agenda on articles. He arbitrary deletes material with specious reasons (Beall's list). He is not a credible source of material.

I'd appreciate it if he refrained from posting on my talk page. NASAprobes88 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really should respond to this COI concern. Your Wikipedia history consists of almost nothing but your repeated attempts to add mention of this one paper by Michael Grieves, andthe associated userpage posts, so it's a valid concern. Meters (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made other contributions. My history has exactly ONE mention of this paper. so that makes it about 1 in 5 or 6 of my submissions. It mentions Michael Grieves because he's the one author of the reference. It has only occurred as many times as it has because of the unwarranted vandalism by MrOllie. Because I would not be bullied by MrOllie that's somehow a COI? I would make other contributions but I'm now concerned that there is unwarranted interference posting a relevant paragraph supported by a citation that someone else deletes for an arbitrary and completely bogus reason (the "predatory journal" nonsense). It certainly appears that MrOllie has some agenda or COI for his unwarranted deletion.

Please explain to me why the posting I made is not acceptable. It is clearly on the topic. It follows the format of previous paragraphs by naming the author, and cites a peer-reviewed journal. NASAprobes88 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not responded to whether you have a conflict of interest. And it's very clear that your statement My history has exactly ONE mention of this paper. so that makes it about 1 in 5 or 6 of my submissions. is not correct. You do know that your entire edit history Special:Contributions/NASAprobes88 is public, correct? I count: thee edits to GE-400 series (one of those just a typo correction); nine attempts to add substantially the same edit to DIKW pyramid, mentioning Michael Grieves and sourcing his paper; one self-revert of one of those DIKW pyramid edits; and nine user talk page edits (here and on User talk:MrOllie about your Michael Grieves edit to DIKW pyramid. That certainly makes you an WP:SPA on the issue. There's nothing wrong with being an WP:SPA in and of itself, but it does justify the WP:COI concern. Now please respond to the concern. Read WP:COI and tell us whether you have a conflict of interest. That includes any relationship (personal or financial) to Michael Grieves, the paper in question, the publisher of the paper, or even the subject in general.

As for the issue of your edit itself, MrOllie thinks that the paper was published in a predatory journal and thus should not be used a s a ref, but that discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. I've explained this to you more than once. The talk page thread has already been opened. As I said You have three choices: you can continue the edit war, in which case you will be reported to the edit warring board; you can drop this, in which case the article should remain in its original state; or you can discuss this contested edit on the article's talk page with MrOllie and any other interested editors to attempt to reach a consensus. And I've already pointed you to the other avenues available if a consensus cannot be reached on article's talk page. I'm not going to respond here again. Meters (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do know my entire edit history is public. You actually confirm my claim that "my history has exactly ONE mention of this paper." I've posted the ONE mention. Everything else is undoing the unwarranted deletion of that ONE mention. There are no different instances of my citing anything else. I've explained I will not be bullied by Ollie who has no valid reason for deleting something he makes up same lame excuse ("predatory journal") for doing so. Since my PhD students generally do the posting, I am not aware of this WP:SPA. I am not letting this go.

BTW, what's you're involvement in this? You seem to have let Ollie bully you with his talk page comment. What role do you have here? NASAprobes88 (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:MrOllie. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Meters (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done no "attack". I am trying to understand why this "MrOllie" is attacking my work in an arbitrary and capricious manner. He is practicing censorship. He has no objective basis to delete a paragraph from a peer reviewed journal of a well known academic author. This should not be allowed by Wiki. Please tell me why it is being allowed. NASAprobes88 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see from MrOllie's talk page that he is treating you with the same disregard and disrespect that he is my work. This should be unacceptable behavior. NASAprobes88 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at DIKW pyramid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meters (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to have technically violated 3RR, but this continued reverting will almost certainly be seen as edit warring if this goes to the edit warring board. The contested edit is under discussion on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the status quo and discuss the edit. Meters (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why WIKI is allowing deletions from MrOllie based on his personal opinion that the very legitimate peer review journal is somehow not valid. He has no objective basis to make such a claim.

This is a personal attack. It clearly isn't based on any objective criteria. NASAprobes88 (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:NASAprobes88. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Yes, you are making personal attacks. Accusing MrOllie of censorship is an attack. As for his edits, you have both been warned for edit warring over the contested DIKW pyramid material. You have three choices: you can continue the edit war, in which case you will be reported to the edit warring board; you can drop this, in which case the article should remain in its original state; or you can discuss this contested edit on the article's talk page with MrOllie and any other interested editors to attempt to reach a consensus. The thread is already open, and per WP:BRD this is what should have happened after your edit was first undone. If no consensus can be reached then there other resolution techniques in the WP:SEEKHELP portion of WP:DISPUTE Meters (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]