User talk:Nome77

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Nome77. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nome77, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nome77! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cryonics has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cryonics was changed by Nome77 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.88837 on 2016-03-21T19:53:09+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Nome77 I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia along with my regular editing about health and medicine. Your edits to date are all about cryonics and this makes your account what we call a "single purpose account" (please do read that, to see the community's experience with such editors). I'm also giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Nome77. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with players in the cryonics field (for example, Cryonics Institute)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an employee or associate of any cryonics organization. I am a cryonicist, and also a biological scientist (in an unrelated field). Cryonics is a small community so we do tend to know each other, mostly online. (That could constitute a connection, not sure). I certainly have no financial or other outside motivations. My personal interest in the topic is towards a balanced accurate page, representing all available information and points of view (scientific and layperson). In my opinion, a (theoretical) team of only non-cryonicists editors is unlikely to know enough about cryonics to make the article as good as it can be, so I think it is good to have a diverse group. -- Nome77 (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that you have no COI per se. I guess by "cryonicist" you mean somebody who wants to be preserved after you initially die.. I will remove COI category from this page, to discuss what we call "advocacy" a bit, which I hope you will tolerate. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy in Wikipedia

Based on what you have wrote above, I want to make sure are aware of issues with advocacy in Wikipedia.

There are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not (see What Wikipedia is not) and one of the things WP is not, is a platform for advocacy. Please especially see the section, WP:NOTADVOCACY. "What Wikipedia is Not" is both a policy and a "pillar" - something very essential to the very guts of this place. People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to abuse Wikipedia - to hijack it from its mission of providing the world with free access to "accepted knowledge." Some people come here and try to create promotional content about their companies (classic "COI"), some come to tell everybody how bad it is to eat meat, some come to grind various political axes... we get all kinds of advocacy (COI is just a subset of it) It all comes down to violations of NOTADVOCACY. A lot of times, people don't even understand this is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.

For non-COI advocacy issues, we have three very good essays offering advice - one is WP:ADVOCACY another is WP:SPA, and just as a checklist to help you stay on the good path, please see also WP:TENDENTIOUS which describes how advocacy editors tend to behave. (I check myself against that from time to time, for things I feel strongly about).

So, while I hear you that you are a cryonicist in the real world, but please do try to check your belief in that technology at the login page and let reliable sources guide your editing here in Wikipedia. And while you are free to edit about whatever the heck you want, please do consider broadening the scope of your editing. (I do realize that you are just getting started here, and everybody starts somewhere! Who knows where you will end up)

Changes to content (adding or deleting) need to be governed by the content policies and guidelines - namely WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and the sourcing guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. The sourcing guideline are really important, as all content needs to be based on sources, so please be sure you are familiar RS and MEDRS.

In terms of behavior, the really key behavioral policies are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:DR, and the key guideline is WP:TPG. If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course.

But please do try to aim everything you do and write in Wikipedia to further Wikipedia's mission (not your mission) and base everything you do on the spirit (not just the letter) of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Your passions will determine what you work on, but they shouldn't guide how you work here. I hope that makes sense.

If you have questions about working in WP at any time going forward, or about anything I wrote above, please ask me. I am happy to talk. Thanks again for your patience with me. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent information on WP:Advocacy. I don't have any questions about it at this moment. Have a great day. -- Nome77 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you too! Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cryonics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Cryonics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)