User talk:Spectra239
Welcome!
|
Disambiguation link notification for January 29[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Anna Salamon
- added a link pointing to Berkeley
- Michael Vassar
- added a link pointing to Aon
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
[edit]
I noticed that you replaced the side navbox at Template:Molecular nanotechnology with a footer navbox. Generally, such large changes should be suggested on the talk page. In this case, the side navbox is needed for consistency with the other four nanotechnology navboxes. I have no problem with also having a footer navbox, and this is already the case with Template:Nanotechnology and the equivalent Template:Nanotech footer. But the footer should be created in a new location (such as Template:Molecular nanotechnology footer) and the sidebox should be retained in at least some of the articles where it was before. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Having both a navbox and a sidebox seems a little redundant, but I have no objection if you'd like to re-add the sidebox to the relevant pages. Spectra239 (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Promotion[edit]
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to The Syndicate (group). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- The book in question is not from a vanity press, as you claimed. That is factually inaccurate. It is from John Wiley & Sons. See discussion at the article talk page. Spectra239 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]
Hi Spectra
I am sorry to do this (and I usually don't if I am working on content with someone, as it is too confusing, generally) but...
I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are mostly focused on "the Syndicate" and its members, and are somewhat promotional. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.
Hello, Spectra239. 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[edit]
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 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 members of the Syndicate, their publishers, etc? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with 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. You can reply here - I am watching this page.
Also if this is too upsetting to discuss with me, since we have been having a bit of a content dispute, we can bring this to the community right away and I can step out of this aspect of the discussion. Please let me know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- This claim is, quite frankly, absurd. I have zero COI with any of the Syndicate members. I have literally never met any of them, either in real life or over the Internet, except for being involuntarily spammed by their marketing materials (which I have never purchased). I certainly have no family, business, or financial relationship with any of them. I created an article which, in the lede, describes them as a "pyramid scheme" (honestly, I was slightly worried about that being POV, in the opposite direction). I am a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Transhumanism and, if you look more closely at my edit history, you'll see that the majority of my edits have been focused there. My job has absolutely nothing to do with any of the Syndicate's activities (I work in artificial intelligence). I've been editing Wikipedia as a hobby since I was in high school in 2006 (under a different account, though I'm pretty sure I've never used two accounts simultaneously). I have never been paid by anyone to edit Wikipedia.
- Please do bring this to the community, as soon as you can. I stand by everything I have said, and I deny in the strongest possible terms having any kind of COI here. I suggest getting an uninvolved editor's third opinion to resolve the dispute about the article's content. Spectra239 (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I was going to copy your comment on my Talk page to here, but I see you replied above. Thanks for replying. Your answer makes sense and I very much noticed that you included the negative stuff in the lead. I am sorry to offend you but I wanted to check. So, so often I come across editors who are editing under a COI (on pages where I am not actually editing!) and clarifying that tends to make things simpler for everyone down the road. Thanks for entertaining the discussion here, briefly. Sorry again. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
H+Pedia[edit]
Hi there, as a member of Wikiproject transhumanism, I thought you might want to check out the latest on H+Pedia which now has a revamped home page as an introduction point. :) https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Deku-shrub (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Spectra239. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Jade Wang[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Jade Wang requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Blueclaw (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
"Leverage Research" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leverage Research. Since you had some involvement with the Leverage Research redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Praxidicae (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Laura Deming for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laura Deming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Deming until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The article Tomer Kagan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
WP:1E: Subject of article is only know for an insignificant role in Quixey.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)