User talk:Writingking

January 2022

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Eric Ash, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Please kindly tell me what I had done that you reverted. I know that a long time has passed and you may not remember but in any case I don't come here very often and there must have been a good reason for the edit I made. If you can, please tell me what it was and would be happy to provide a reference. Writingking (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I added the reference and I hope it is fine now. If there are still issues, please let me know. Writingking (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hello, Writingking. I have, for the second time, reverted your edits on Fourier transform. There are hundreds of primary sources that deal with Fourier transforms of this and that, we don't add them as sources to wiki articles just because of that. Since your only interest seems to be the work of Mr Nikoonahad (et al.), may I ask what's your relation with him? Editing with conflict of interests is a big no-no on Wikipedia. I hope you'll understand. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The articles cited deal with the applications of FT to scalar field theory. They were published in peer reviewed journals. In what way you consider these “advertising”. You say "we don't add them as sources to wiki articles just because of that" but yet in the article many references cited with little practical application. It is unfortunate that you consider practical applications in physics and engineering as "advertising." Papers published in Journal of Applied Physics are not advertising as they go through rigorous peer reviews. My objective is to put in Wikipedia some of the work that was published prior to the invention of the internet. A lot of that work appears to be getting forgotten and the new generation’s mentality is that nothing existed before Google! I hope you understand my point of view and let my edits to go through. Writingking (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Constant314. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fourier transform have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. You seem to be on a campaign to promote the works of Mehrdad Nikoonahad by inserting references that are only vaguely related to the articles. Mehrdad Nikoonahad works cited by you are all primary sources and not suitable in most cases for use by Wikipedia articles. Constant314 (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully you are wrong! Papers published in Journal of Applied Physics are NOT advertising and I will deal with that separately. The references at issue is the first report of the use of Artificial Neural Networks in medical ultrasound imaging. It was reported in 1990 before the ANNs, AI and the internet became common place. My objective is to put in Wikipedia some of the work that was published prior to the invention of the internet. A lot of that work appears to be getting forgotten and the new generation’s mentality is that nothing existed before Google! I hope you understand my point of view and allow my edits to be included. Writingking (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Constant314, I thought more about what you wrote. It is unfortunate that the value of the references cited is overlooked and instead all the focus has gone to one of the authors. I don’t care if the name of the authors are removed from the citations but those references are of value as it relates to the applications of Fourier transform to the wave equation in applied physics. You say the citations are “primary source” references. I don’t understand what this means. Could you please explain this better and/or refer me to Wikipedia documentation on this so that I make sure I do my future edits the right way. Thank you. Writingking (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A primary source is the original source of the information. For example, if Nikoonahad publishes a finding X, then the original source is a reliable source for the fact that Nikoonahad published finding X. It is not a reliable source that X is correct, important, or notable.

An example of a reliable secondary source is a college textbook. If a textbook mentions finding X and says that it is useful, then there is a good chance that X is correct, important, and notable. By the time information makes its way into a secondary source, it has been around a while. The idea has survived and made it into the mainstream. The author of the secondary source has found that there is merit in the idea. It means that the information has been vetted to an extent. It is probably notable and probably correct. That makes the information more reliable. It can still be wrong. Another example is an overview or survey article in a respected journal by a recognized expert. If the expert cites finding X, then that is a good indication that X meets some of the criteria for inclusion.

Now, in your opinion, finding X is correct, important, and notable. However, for me to verify it, you must cite a reliable secondary source that says finding X is correct, important, and notable. By default, Wikipedia editors have no credentials, and their opinions are not substitute for reliably referenced facts. You may be an expert, but we don't know who you are or what credentials you hold.

The decision about whether information remains or removed in not symmetric. The threshold to remove or deny information is much lower than the threshold for including information.

Finally, it is not Wikipedia's mission to provide a record of important references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. If finding X is correct, important, notable, and relevant to an article on subject Y, then finding X can be included. We are only interested in X and not the first time it was published. If there is an entire article on finding X, then the first published mention is a reasonable part of the history section. Constant314 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to write this. It is 80% clear but it is still unclear how the original discoverer gets mentioned. Suppose that “a” discovers X. Then X propagates through the literature, gets vetted etc and after some time “b”, “c” and “d” refer to X and hopefully say some good things about the work of "a". For example in this case “b” can be the author of a textbook as you pointed out.… So in this simple case, do we refer to the work of “b”, “c” and “d” and leave “a” out? If YES, that would be very unfair. If NO, please kindly write a couple of short sentences illustrating how in light of “b”, “c” and “d” we should refer to the work of “a” about his discovery X so that it is not considered primary source. If I understand this, I maybe able redo my edits to satisfy this requirement. Thank you. Writingking (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of citation is so that other editors can verify the information. It is not about giving credit. So, if b, c, and d are all reliable secondary sources that mention X, then all may be cited. However, usually one or two is enough. Again, the purpose is about letting the information be verified. If the Wikipedia article in question is about X, then it would be reasonable to cite a, in the history section of that article. However, the mere mention of X in a related article is no reason to cite a. Constant314 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I keep this in mind for my future edits but reading through 100s of articles on Wikipedia, regretabbly things are not as you describe. Writingking (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, given the obvious conflict of interest, you should not be attempting to redo your edits. - MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I will rewrite some of my edits as I believe that a lot of pre-internet and pre-Google good information is left out and that is not how an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Once the edits are done you shall see that there is no conflict of interest. It just turns out that in a two short days I did a lot of edits on the same subject and it came across as "conflict of interest". I have no COI and even offered to remove the name of the authors from some of the references I had cited in my edits. Writingking (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

They would still be primary references and they would still be WP:REFSPAM. That still is not Wikipedia's mission. All information still has to be verifiable (WP:V) by reliable sources (WP:RS) and needs to be notable (WP:NOTABLE) in the context of the article in which is appears. Constant314 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me what you are referring to. Writingking (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Writingking. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to publicize yourself or your work. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, There are many names on those articles and they deal with inspection and metrology witch are an integral and an essential part of semiconductor manufacturing. No company name has been mentioned. There is no advertising or publicizing. The references must be judged based on their relevance and merit. Writingking (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You have an obvious conflict of interest here. The reason we have guidelines about that is that you are not able to impartially judge references based on relevance and merit in such a situation. Instead we rely on other editors to judge these things - and multiple other editors have examined your edits and reverted them. MrOllie (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

OK. I rest my case. I have nothing to gain or lose but I repeat those references are important as inspection and metrology is a essential step in semiconductor manufactuing. There are numerous patents after the name of those authors but probably since they were affiliated with companies they did not published as much. Publishing is more common in academia. There are few published papers on inspection and metrology. Writingking (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I definitely keep that in mind. I only go by memory and try to include some original work that was done from before internet. It is often difficult to find web references to those but to the extent possible, I have tried to provide those. Writingking (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Writingking, you left me a note, but after everything Constant314 and MrOllie have said I don't think I have anything else to add. From the few sentences you added a reader can learn very little about the subject, and the whole purpose seems to be saying "we/they have done this and this and this" (with a little help from Mr Fourier). As for the article Mehrdad Nikoonahad, I must say it has a strange edit history, with several editors having similar names, and the only interest in Mr Nikoonahad's biografy. That, here, screams WP:COI. Ponor (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Ponor, It is unfortunate that you are overlooking the value of the references cited as it relates to applications of Fourier Transform in applied physics and engineering and instead seem only fixated on the bio of one individual. I don’t care if you remove the authors names from the citations as it makes no difference to me, but those references are of value to people who want to enter into those fields. Writingking (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Writingking. 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 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. El_C 22:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I keep what you say in mind, if I continue editing. I tend to write only about the subjects I know something about. If being knowledgeable about a field or a person’s work is considered “conflict of interest”, then a clueless man/woman who knows nothing about the subject matter has absolutely no COI and can probably do a better job but then the value of the information Wikipedia becomes questionable. A few references I had added to various pages have been removed and frankly I don't have the energy or the time to try to fight to restore them, even though in my opinion and from my knowledge they were better-vetted references than what is currently on those pages. So I respectfully suggest that this subject is moot. There is only an IEEE book published in 1992 which I added to the Artificial Neural Network page which was removed and I am trying to see if I can restore that one. Writingking (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do NOT receive any compensation whatsoever from anybody about what I have contributed and nor am I presently affiliated with any organization or research group. I am not in advertising business either. The references I had added (which now have been removed) have all been published in peer-reviewed rigorous scientific journals and they were added purely based on their scientific merit and relevance to the subject matter. It is upsetting to see that your editor, based purely on bias and prejudice has removed all my contributions and let stand articles published in conference proceedings, are unvetted, and have not gone through similar rigorous peer-review process. This is absurd. Writingking (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

In view of the information above on this page and at [1] about the way your editing as a whole promotes a particular individual, I'm sorry to say I find it impossible to believe your denial of a conflict of interest. You have been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed conflict of interest. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 04:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC).