User talk:Michael.adrir.scott

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Michael.adrir.scott, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Michael.adrir.scott, good luck, and have fun. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Michael.adrir.scott. 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, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the 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 take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—

The policy states:

"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it."

I will try Template:Request_edit again, but last time I tried this it was ignored for over a year.

michael.adrir.scott (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—

I have reviewed the policies in more detail and note the following:

Wikipedia:An_interest_is_not_a_conflict_of_interest

Specifically:

"Conflicted editors can be an extremely valuable and largely untapped resource as they are often the most equipped and motivated to report on a given subject. Policy permits conflicted editors to edit articles provided they comply with other policies."

and

"When citing conflict of interest in a discussion be sure to also cite the relevant policies and guidelines that you believe have been broken (e.g. WP:NPOV), ideally with specific examples. A conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article or revert edits although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion or reversion."

You have reverted all of my contributions, including those where I have only fixed incorrect citations or added peer-reviewed scholarly sources of evidence without altering the content of the article itself. Contrary to the above policy. When I add new content, I will follow the Template:Request_edit guideline, but for small changes like updating a reference this is unnecessary.

michael.adrir.scott (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—

I would also like to draw your attention to:

Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.

from Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam

michael.adrir.scott (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—

I can see that you've been systematically removing references to my work across Wikipedia. Even in cases where other people made the contributions. Could you please explain to me why? Notably, the Global Game Jam which I have researched for several years. These are publicly and freely available peer-reviewed academic sources that enhance the relevant Wikipedia articles. Is there insufficient detail or context to justify their inclusion?

michael.adrir.scott (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far every instance I've found was either added by your account, or one of a handful of IP addresses from a small range associated with a particular university. I'm rather unconvinced that there are more than one or two individuals who have been adding these references. Maybe an overzealous intern or student? - MrOllie (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or even other members of the research group or those who participated in my game jam research...if they are all coming from the same network then that is probably the university network. Is that the sole reason for the reverts? If they're not adding any value, then that is fine.

I am just taken aback because these are academic peer-reviewed sources which I believe enhance the relevant wikipedia entries, and I have been contributing under my own name in good faith. I'm still wrapping my head around the COI policy (see above) and, of course, I now realize that the use of Template:Request_edit would have been more appropriate. I have already started to suggest the relevant sources on several of the talk pages.

michael.adrir.scott (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 12:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]