User talk:Emberchampion
Managing a conflict of interest[edit]
Hello, Emberchampion. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page David W. Allan, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see a conflict of interest in the common sense, that what is being said is being done for profit or personal gain.
- It seems to me like it is very simple information about someone using official interviews and first hand sources of the individual.
- If there is something specific in the document that is not approved, please just remove it, vs reverting the whole thing. I am doing this as a favor to an old scientist who just wants his accomplishments recognized. Emberchampion (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Then you most definitely have a conflict of interest, Emberchampion. Please follow that blue link to read our recommendations for those in your position. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is the information incorrect? Have I not documented the sources? Emberchampion (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Personal correspondence from the subject is not verifiable so effectively - no, you have not. Even if the correspondence were published it would not count for much as it comes from the subject itself - you need reliable sources independent of the subject. The close connection to the subject is clear from the language used - examples:
During his career, Allan had many accomplishments, too many to list here
andhis world renowned time and frequency metrics
. Also, please always respect the privacy of family members. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)- Thank you for the clarification. Would it be fair to say that an interview with a journalist is also not verifiable? Most of the information I used came from this interview: https://ethw.org/Oral-History:David_W._Allan.
- If I cannot use this as a source, that is fine. But if I can, I will revise the previous versions and remove anything that doesn't come from that source, or a verifiable 3rd party. Emberchampion (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- A transcript of an interview is still an account from the subject himself so would have to be used with extreme caution and sparingly - see WP:BLPPRIMARY. This is an encyclopaedia: it reports what is notable and verifiable and his personal recollections such as
he and his family built a home without a furnace based on six independent solar gain principles and also with a passive solar air-conditioner
do not appear to be either. The nub of the problem here is that you are "doing this as a favor to an old scientist who just wants his accomplishments recognized" which may be at odds with the need to contribute neutrally; it would be far better to allow someone else with no connection to expand the article in due course. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)- I was just quoting the IEEE... Emberchampion (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- A transcript of an interview is still an account from the subject himself so would have to be used with extreme caution and sparingly - see WP:BLPPRIMARY. This is an encyclopaedia: it reports what is notable and verifiable and his personal recollections such as
- Personal correspondence from the subject is not verifiable so effectively - no, you have not. Even if the correspondence were published it would not count for much as it comes from the subject itself - you need reliable sources independent of the subject. The close connection to the subject is clear from the language used - examples:
- Is the information incorrect? Have I not documented the sources? Emberchampion (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Then you most definitely have a conflict of interest, Emberchampion. Please follow that blue link to read our recommendations for those in your position. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your latest edit - please do not add commentary, in this case describing his fellowship of the IEEE as an "extraordinary accomplishment". This was a good example of why COI editing is strongly discouraged. Also, please don't mark your edits as minor when they are not. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)