User talk:Zacha1211

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Zacha1211, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

So are you the same person who has been editing the Paul K. Hansma page from the IP address 128.111.8.54? Please reply here, just below this.Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not Paul Hansma though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacha1211 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on.... and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for replying. Would you please explain your connection to Hansma and to UCSB? I am not asking you to identify yourself, but just to disclose the connections. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a graduate student working with Paul Hansma and I was just updating his page so that other people can see the work he has done. What comes across as promotional?Zacha1211 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) OK, you got the indenting thing, but you forgot to sign (just type exactly four tildas at the end of your comment). Sorry to press, but this is fundamental stuff that will trip you up and bother other people if you don't get it right, as a habit. Please be sure to indent and sign. I signed your unsigned comment for you. (note, I had what is called an "edit conflict" when you went back and added the signature -- my edit wouldn't save. This happens sometimes!)

Thanks for disclosing the relationship. Would you please clarify -- were you asked to do this? Jytdog (talk)

No Zacha1211 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for replying. That last question was to determine whether you are editing for pay or not, as we consider "paid editing" in Wikipedia. So you are not.

That means, that here in Wikipedia, you have a plain old vanilla conflict of interest. Not only do you know him personally, but (as you know) as his graduate student, your professional reputation will be tied to his, for the rest of your career.

You can review the conflict of interest guideline here -- WP:COI -- if you like, but you will see that what I am saying here, is a reflection of that.

Can I walk you through our conflict of interest management process? Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Zacha1211 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

break[edit]

OK so here is the deal...

Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages conflict of interest.

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. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

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 want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step, which we started above.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Zacha1211 - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work with Paul K. Hansma and have a conflict of interest with regard to him and related topics" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about Hansma, any of his companies, or or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

Would you please do that? In the meantime I will add the disclosure at Talk:Paul K. Hansma... Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay finished! Zacha1211 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added the tag to the talk page. As you can see there, somebody from one of his companies came by earlier and was adding a bunch of promotional stuff. They were indefinitely blocked for doing that. Am going to open another subsection for the next step... Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, so will my edits be returned after?Zacha1211 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a bit... Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2[edit]

So...As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page (already done); and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. (and please really do take some time to review User:Jytdog/How -- as a scientist you also might find WP:EXPERT to be helpful, if you want to work on science content) Best regards Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will do for future edits. Can you be a peer reviewer on my last edits though and have the deletions of it undone? Zacha1211 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The speed at which you replied, showed that there is no way that you took the time to read User:Jytdog/How.

The content you added was not OK. Please hear me - you are acting like a lot of people with a conflict of interest act. You are in a big hurry and have a very strong outside interest and that is driving what you are doing here. An experienced, unconflicted Wikipedia editor would not generate content like this.

I realize that as a scientist, writing what you know and then sticking a citation behind that, is something you are used to, but that is not how Wikipedia works. References are everything here -- we summarize what they say. So you can't say "X invented Y" and post a paper where X describes Y. That is wrong in a bunch of ways here. Please actually do read user:Jytdog/How to get oriented to how Wikipedia actually works. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog. Can I have a different editor review what I posted? After a quick google search I was able to find that you were unreasonable and a poor person to deal with, not surprising based on your power tripping attitude you've displayed so far. If I can have another person review what I wrote that'd be great. Your last message bore an insulting and condescending tone, although I realize that Wikipedia is the only place you feel you have any power in your life, I still do not appreciate that. There's no way that ALL of my edits were incorrect. So perhaps you should sift through and leave the ones that are correct and I'll fix those that aren't. Thanks.Zacha1211 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I could to get you oriented. You are new here, and have a lot to learn about how this place works. I do hope you read WP:EXPERT and User:Jytdog/How. Best of luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning[edit]

So, above I said that people with conflicts of interest tend to behave badly. Edit warring badly sourced, promotional content into Wikipedia is one of those ways. Please see the notice below.

Your recent editing history at Paul K. Hansma 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaging in an edit war with me. Delete incorrect information if you want. The whole page is not incorrect.

Please learn what kind of content is acceptable, and please follow the COI guideline instead of editing directly. And please sign your posts. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that the first two publications are okay but the four following aren't?

I told that indenting and signing are fundamental etiquette here. You are ignoring that, and you insulted me above. And you are clearly not taking the time to try to learn what kind of contnent is OK here in Wikipedia. I gave time to you when I have other stuff to do, and I am going to go do it now. I have no more to say here. I have commented on the proposed content at Talk:Paul_K._Hansma#Proposed_content. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zacha1211. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again (for instance, restore material previously removed) unless you get prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. If you are not happy with User:Jytdog's talk page advice, try making your case at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Be aware that editing which suggests a conflict of interest tends to be noticed and your best plan is to try getting consensus for your changes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]