User talk:Mkingsense

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Mkingsense! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Women Thrive Worldwide

I've linked it. The link is red but will turn blue when an article is created. Redlinks are meant to be used when you think the subject is notable. Please read WP:ORG, WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE if you haven't edited much. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You won't need to change the link I made, it just turns blue as soon as an article is created. You might want to do it via WP:AFC as you will get help that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, real life. Anyway, I've moved the article to the new name and made a minor fix to the first sentence, but that needs to be improved. Over to you now. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Betsy Mitchell, U.S. Olympic swimmer

Hi, Mkingsense. I just reviewed your recent edits to the Betsy Mitchell article. You have made a number of unsourced changes to the infobox and text, including changing the subject's full name and birth place, which are contrary to reliable third-party sources (see, e.g., Sports-Reference.com). You also did not include any sources for the changes you made regarding the subject's university degrees. All statements about living biographical subjects must be verifiable with reliable sources per WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, otherwise they are subject to being reverted for lack of sources. Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. I'm not necessarily accusing you of anything, I just think you may have more detail on your relationship with CIRM that may be useful to get on record. MarginalCost (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory paid editing disclosure

Hello Mkingsense. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Mkingsense. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mkingsense|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. -- Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have zero COI with this. I am receiving zero compensation from CIRM.

Please explain this edit note. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Which part do you need explained?

You wrote: I have made extensive edits to this page based on input from CIRM If you are making edits based on input from CIRM, you have an external relationship with CIRM and that is a COI. That is not zero COI. Paid editing is not the only form of COI.

Please explain your relationship with CIRM. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You said "If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message."

I did exactly that. I stated I am not being compensated by CIRM. Zero compensation.

I guess what you said earlier wasn't what you meant.

So what is it that you want? You are asking what "relationship" I have with CIRM. What does that mean? The COI policy, and what you are trying to dig at, is about financial COI. I don't have one. How many times do you need me to say that? I am not being paid by CIRM. Or compensated by CIRM. In any way. For anything.

If you have any further questions, please make them very specific. If they actually pertain to the COI policy, I will answer accordingly, as I have done so far.

Perhaps I need to remind you, though it is visible immediately above, that this is what you wrote in your original false accusation:

"The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Mkingsense. The template

can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:

."

I am getting frustrated and I think you are too.

Your edits are very typical of a paid editors. Hence, that was the first question.

I am willing to accept that you were not paid.

COI is much broader than that here in Wikipedia. You can read the COI guideline if you like. I am providing you formal notice of it now:

Hello, Mkingsense. 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. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

The COI management process in WP is just like it is in academia - a) disclose the external relationship; b) peer review.

Both MarginalCost and I have asked you to disclose the relationship. It is obvious that there is one based on your taking input from them.

Please comply with the COI guideline.

Please disclose the relationship - the context in which you consulted with CIRM to get their input and then implemented it here.

thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2018‎ (UTC)

Where is MarginalCost's user page?

This is beginning to feel like harassment. Very shady.

I am done. I will report at COIN that you refuse to disclose your conflict of interest. You are wasting my time. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you wasted my time as the lackey of someone without a user page.

Mkingsense, sorry if things have been unclear. I don't think this needs to be adversarial, and I hope you continue to work on the Wikipedia project. As I stated at COI noticeboard, and as I modified the generic template message when I posted to alert you to that conversation, I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything, and I personally totally believe you when you say you're not receiving compensation from CIRM. We're just trying to understand what you meant when you said you were editing "based on input from CIRM." That could mean any number of things, and some editors use language like that when they're paid to edit articles, so it just sent off some flags to check it out. It could also mean anything from someone at the institute sending you the exact article text they want all the way to just a passing comment from a friend that there were some inaccuracies that inspired you to do your own research. Can you tell us what you meant by the comment? MarginalCost (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright

Some of the content you added in this diff series was copy/pasted from CIRM's website without quotes or attribution.

• the content about Klassen's trial was copy/pasted from here.
• content about patient advocates was copied from here, etc.

I am asking the content to be revdelled.

One of your recent additions has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, so you will help me with the details. Great! Thanks. And if you don't want to accept my edits, please make sure the page is updated. It was way out of date, as had already been noted in Wikipedia well before I tried to edit it.

• What does this mean? You spend more time in here than I do..."revdelled"

• How do I make sure to attribute content from CIRM's web site other than linking to it, which I believe I did? Do I need to put quotes around the text?

• The places you are saying are where the edits come from is actually CIRM's own blog. That's their information, as you noted. It's posted for the public to see, along with all the information they make public on their web site (just about everything). What do I do to make using this information OK in Wikipedia? Add another citation? (I added several, maybe I need to add more.) Do I need to put quotes around it? I ask this, btw, because it's largely factoids, and if I tried to re-write it as a non-scientist, I could get something wrong, which is exactly what you don't want.

Happy to note where the information is from, as I tried to do with all the citations I added.

I'm getting confused now, though because, for example, with their mission statement: I *did* put that in quotes and cite it, which is just what had been done in the previous version. And it seems like you are saying that what I did was wrong. Please advise.

Please disclose your connection to CIRM. Do not copy paste into WP. These are not complicated things. WP:REVDEL means deletion from Wikipedia's history. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I can now tell you are attacking me (or perhaps CIRM??) personally. You said "I am done. I will report at COIN that you refuse to disclose your conflict of interest. You are wasting my time. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)"

And yet, here you still are. Spending even more of your precious "wasted" time on this (you said your time was being wasted, remember?) But you're not actually being helpful, and in fact, you're trying to be condescending and a bully. You've been burned as someone who had COIs in the past and are hell-bent on trying to force someone into saying they have one when they do not. And all related to a Wiki page about a *public* entity about which all information is made public, and yet the Wiki was grossly out of date - as had been noted on the page itself. It needs updating. Good job blocking that, and for what?

You clearly have no interest in making Wikipedia better. That's fine. It'll get done eventually. I look forward to seeing how much more of your time, which you were so concerned about having wasted, you spend on this. It's becoming entertaining.

As you will. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)