User talk:CharlieTrig

February 2015

Hello, I'm Spinningspark. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. SpinningSpark 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark I apologize, I went ahead and edited my entry, please review. This is an important technology the world needs to know about.

CharlieTrig — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieTrig (talk • contribs) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Surge protector. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Surge protector shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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.

I did that, and instead of engaging in dialog, my entries were deleted, the technology insulted and scoffed at. Extremely unprofessional and rude.CharlieTrig (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

[ Indenting corrected] Perhaps you could help us out here. Where on the article talk page have you attempted to engage in discussion? Your edit history shows that you have not made any contribution there at all. Deletion of advertising does not require prior discussion as it is a fundamental Wikipedia policy (and reverting it does not count towards 3RR either). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just to be sure the point is made as explicitly as possible: Charlie, you need to click >>here<<, click the "+" sign in the tabs at the top of that page (to start a new section, which will go at the bottom of the page), pick a section title like "proposing addition of whatever", and make your case there. Complaining at various editors' talk pages will not help. Jeh (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

CharlieTrig, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CharlieTrig! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Advertising

Regarding this edit at Surge protector, I have to inform you that advertising specific products is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Further, the material is not acceptably referenced for the purposes of Wikipedia. Any references used must be reliable and must be secondary sources that independently support the material added. A manufacturer's website is not such a secondary source, but a primary source which is not acceptable. Manufacturers make all sorts of unverifiable claims for their products.

Also, I need to aquaint you with the three reverts rule (3RR) which you are not technically in breach of, but the admins will regard making 4 reverts just outside of the 24 hour window as gaming the system. 3RR is a bright line rule and any breach always results in a instant account block.

I now note that you have a connection with the company whose products you seem keen to peddle. You need to read our policy on conflicts of interest. You are required to declare your connection on your user page (the indirect reference to Trig enterprises is insufficient). You are not permitted to directly add your material, but must make an edit request on the talk page declaring your COI. Others will then decide if your material is acceptable and properly referenced and make the edit accordingly. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Peddle is a strong word, I have no interest in selling this product through Wikipedia and the nofollow nature of Wiki precludes the link being for SEO. There is no link to a sales page, no e-commerce link to buy it and we are not interested in the general public purchasing this product, it is for industrial and military use predominately. I apologize for any errors in my initial adding of this technology, I am new to Wiki and just wanted the world to know about it. I will follow your guidelines and support our entry with the supporting documents you requested, this technology not being on Wikipedia is Wiki's loss, and the world. But, you have your reasons due to the charlatans that have come before us - like TVSS being labeled as a surge protector device to begin, when MOV technology is not really that at all. SPDs have cutoff voltages and allow spike of thousands of volts, while EMTVSS does not, just for starters. CharlieTrig (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if you are not actually peddling the product, you still have close ties to the manufacturers and thus the conflict of interest still exists. The technology would seem to have a valid place in an encyclopedia such as this. Any entry would have to describe the technology but without mentioning the manufacturer or developer (to do so is regarded as advertising). Secondary sources supporting the material would be vital - an article (or articles) in peer reviewed technical journal(s) would probably fill the bill nicely. The article(s) would have to confirm all the points and claims within the article segment. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your last revert puts you at 4RR. The time span of the 4 reverts is only 44 minutes outside of the 24 hour window. A 3RR complaint at WP:AN3, would almost certainly result in an editing block for edit warring as well as gaming the system. As, I note that you are a relatively new editor, I am cutting you some slack and assuming you were unaware of the rule. However, you are now, so don't make it 5RR! DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that you deleted the signature of the original edit in this section, together with the last paragraph of his comment. You didn't answer it, but I guess that the answer to his question about WP:COI is at http://www.trigenterprises.us/products/phaseback.html . --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In due deference to your post, I have reinstated my post suitably reworded in the light of your revelations. I originally assumed that he had deleted it because it did not apply. The steps some hawkers will go to to peddle their merchandise. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand 100% and agree! People go through amazing lengths just to sell garbage. The EMTVSS is not one of these and I am glad we are establishing a dialog about it. I will discuss the issues with the inventor and see what supporting reference we can cite. CharlieTrig (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sourcing

If you want to add this transformer-coupled form of surge protection (and I agree, it's an interesting idea and deserves coverage) then you're going to need to find coverage of it by secondary sources, rather than the makers. Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:V. This coverage needs to be reasonably detailed, so probably a bit more than a trade press press release. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, I am working with the inventor for something, he invented the EMTVSS based on existing theorems such as Ohms, Watts and Faraday, although Faraday was wrong about a few things and Phaseback is proving that to be true. I will see what we can do. CharlieTrig (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You see, that's a bit of a problem.

"FooCo makes a type of suppressor that no-one else does" is a bit dull, but it might stand up in an article with a brief ref from Facilities Manager Monthly.

"The FooCo suppressor uses a wye transformer to couple spikes into a robust resistive circuit that can dissipate them" is going to need a more technical source, but it's also more amenable to also using FooCo's own material as a good technical explanation. This is probably the level to aim at as a section on this suppressor type with an overall Suppressor article.

"Faraday got it Wrong and only FooCo know why!" though is a problem. It's going to need robust sourcing to make a claim like that and (on a good day) WP is resistant to such articles because they're normally written by the clinically psychotic and typed on a half-chewed keyboard with the ability to write in green ink. This sort of thing can and does get past (see Quasiturbine), but I don't recommend it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Coverage in an appropriate technical journal (one where contributions are peer-reviewed), or by a relevant technical institution, is the sort of thing which is needed. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As I advised CharlieTrig[1], per Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD, he should open up a discussion at Talk:Surge protector. This is the mandatory first step in resolving any content dispute on Wikipedia. Any attempt to use Wikipedia Dispute Resolution will be rejected if there is no attempt to first discuss it on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Your recent editing history at Surge protector shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)