User talk:Pawlikj

Welcome...

Hello, Pawlikj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Mike Cline (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome, Mike Cline

My name is Joseph Pawlik, and I am a Professor in the Department of Biology and Marine Biology at UNC Wilmington. I am a marine biologist interested in adding content in the areas of my expertise. I have been wanting to do this for some time, and am finally "taking the plunge".

Regards,

Pawlikj (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'll be happy to help you sort out the complexities of the community. __Mike Cline (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:MutaSOB.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MutaSOB.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new file was uploaded using Wikimedia Commons and the old image was deleted. You may delete the old file "MutaSOB.jpg". Still learning. Thanks. Pawlikj (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Conflict of Interest in Mimicry

Hallo, and thank you for your contribution to Mimicry.

I have moved it from the lead (which is just a summary of the rest of the article) to the Evolution section in the body of the article.

I have also noted that one of the authors you cite is J. R. Pawlik. Wikipedia editors are not forbidden to cite their own works, but since there is a potential conflict of interest between an academic career and the requirement for a neutral point of view here in the encyclopedia, great care is necessary. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Mimicry

[moved from other talk page] Greetings, CC, I don't agree with your changes to Mimicry. The point of my addition was to represent the debate among scientists of mimicry vs. pseudo-mimicry, which you have removed with your edit. There is no conflict of interest in making edits to articles on scientific topics on which I have published in refereed scientific journals (note that two of the 3 references added were not authored by me); indeed, the addition enhanced the "neutral point of view" of Wikipedia by making it clear, early in the article, that scientists debate these examples. Please read the cited references and restore the article to make the controversy clear. Warm regards. Pawlikj (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Relax; you have not been accused of anything. However, there is an entirely real possibility of COI, and I have done no more than to mark that as a hazard to be avoided. Like it or not, many authors have attempted to use Wikipedia for publicity, and many more will do so in the future. To the article. I (and many other editors) have invested very considerable time over the years to bring Mimicry to Good Article status. On the (very minor) changes that I made to your edit, I have mainly just moved it to a suitable section, retaining the references, including your paper, and lightly editing the wording to suit the context. You need to take much more care than unconflicted editors to avoid even the slightest suggestion that you might possibly be pushing any kind of point of view: a suggestion reinforced by the tone of what you have written above. I have explicitly stated "an alternative explanation", which in an entirely neutral way states that scientists have differed on the matter, as the citations indeed demonstrate.

On the use of primary research papers, by the way (I'm not sure if you've come across this), we are enjoined to be careful with them. The encyclopedia is written in the main from "reliable secondary sources", which in this case might be review papers looking back over the field for ten or twenty or more years; or major textbooks. We occasionally use tertiary sources like other encyclopedias, though they're not ideal as likely out of date and error-prone. The enjoinder on primary sources has other justifications, not least that especially where controversial claims are made, positions can change rapidly; and of course, researchers quite rightly emphasize their own points of view and point out the problems with other research in the field, so they are rarely ideal as stable overviews of a field. Finally, as for more detailed treatment of convergent evolution, that is a matter for that article and others in its domain, not for mimicry.

I am not at all minded, therefore, to undo what I have carefully and correctly edited. You should be pleased, as both a researcher and an editor, that your work has been accepted and woven into the substance of the article, which is the better for it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how very condescending your are, CC, So nice that you have deigned to accept my work and allowed it to be "woven into the substance of the article." Several points, from this Wikipedia novice: (1) I'm not accusing you of anything, but there is an entirely real possibility that you are in violation of one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia, Ownership of content : "All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organisation which is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say." And: "Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (2) Regarding "neutral point of view," the Wikipedia advice is quite clear: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The concept of pseudo-mimicry was not raised in the original article, and I attempted to add it as a significant viewpoint with clearly reliable sources -- your edits retained the citations but removed the context. I did not remove content, I added content that provided an additional viewpoint. (3) Regarding the Primary literature, I read the Wikipedia essay on the topic, and it is quite positive about use of these citations. The material in primary literature journal articles are vetted by peer review of other scientists, which is much more than many secondary source citations that may appear in Wikipedia articles. (4) Regarding COI, it seems there is a greater conflict for an editor who cannot bear changes to an article he or she feels proprietary about than there is an issue with my quest for "publicity." I think your referenced desire to maintain "Good Article" status is clear evidence of the possibility of a COI. I can assure you my motives come from 25 years of teaching undergraduates who cite Wikipedia (including incorrect and misleading entries), not for some desire of fame or publicity. The idea that having "a point of view" disqualifies someone from contributing as a COI is plainly absurd. Clearly, you have a "point of view," mine just happens to be shaped by 3 decades of research and teaching. So, my intent in the next few days is to edit the article to include a small section on pseudo-mimicry. Please re-read the Wikipedia POLICY page on Ownership of content and get over yourself. Pawlikj (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you of the clear policy of "No personal attacks". Remarks about another editor's attitude are unacceptable. Kindly do not write anything like your opening or closing remarks above again, and please do not continue to attempt to split the discussion on to my talk page.

I am glad to hear of your constructive motives; in that spirit I will ignore the attacks and reply simply and directly; of course I'm aware this may be pouring fat on the fire, but I'll take the risk so we can work together constructively.

On (1), the article has always been edited collaboratively and will continue to be so, indeed your edits have already been incorporated along with everyone else's. I do not own the article but for a brief moment am working on it on behalf of a long line of editors.

On (2), the edits I made are in the direction of neutrality.

On (3), primary sources are to be used with care in the context of reliable secondary sources. That includes the primary sources that you and I have already agreed to use.

On (4), "cannot bear changes" - is unacceptable (as above) and in fact false: I moved your material to the relevant section of the article (Evolution), and edited it for tone, preserving the references. Thus the change was immediately accepted. I repeat, you have not been accused of anything; you have simply been notified of the policy given the situation, namely that a possible conflict of interest exists and the need for extreme caution (more than normal) on the part of authors who cite themselves. The "possible CoI" is not "absurd" but a matter of fact: a possible CoI exists whenever authors cite their own work, whatever their intentions, and I'm happy to assume yours are entirely positive.

On creating a "Pseudo-mimicry" section, may I suggest that you place a draft on the Talk:Mimicry page so we can discuss it quietly before moving it to the article. It might with benefit include an image of a supposed instance of (marine) mimicry that the citations suggest may be pseudo-mimicry, as discussed in the text of the section. The topic may well be mature enough to have its own article, in which case the section would have a {{main|Pseudo-mimicry}} link at the top, and would consist of a short summary (a paragraph or two) of the main article. Since pseudo-mimicry is a case of convergent evolution, the section would probably fit best within the Evolution section of the article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand why the number of Wikipedia editors is declining - see "Wikipedia: Why Wikipedia is not so great". I'm all for collaboration, but if my contributions are to be promptly revised and reduced in content to the equivalent of footnotes, it feels more like censorship. I maintain that this article lacks balance in addressing pseudo-mimicry (a term that currently does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia). The concept should be addressed in the top section of the article as the last of the paragraphs that define mimicry (indicating inappropriate attribution to mimicry, which, for marine animals is very common). But I won't be involved in further editing of this article under the current regime. Pawlikj (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]