User talk:Nick Gessler

Welcome!

Hello, Nick Gessler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was El Ali meteorite, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, it seems that Nick is a scholar on the issue, that doesn't mean he has a conflict of interest. I would encourage Nick to boldy edit, but please just cite his edits. CT55555(talk) 04:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555 If he were just a scholar in the field, that would be one thing. But when he is citing his own papers...that's either conflict of interest or original research. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is published? CT55555(talk) 22:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's been published and reviewed, that changes things. It's bad form to cite one's own work, but...frankly, in the hard sciences, I think there's less issue with misrepresentation than there would be in social sciences or the realm of literature. The key is, stick to what is stated in the published source—even if you know more that hasn't been published (yet), what's in the Wikipedia article needs to be verifiable against what has been published (to date). Yes, it makes it challenging to write about new discoveries, but it's also challenging to write Wikipedia articles about news events while they are still unfolding. (And speaking from personal opinion, I'd much rather have you making edits based an entry you wrote in Meteoritical Bulletin than any editor making edits based on a story on TMZ.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On that we agree. :-) CT55555(talk) 22:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly a person of any credibility who does NOT cite his own work! Nick Gessler (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor with no knowledge of the subject matter. Why am I not surprised? The last time I entered El Ali as the 9th largest meteorite in the world, one of your colleagues deleted that entry. I re-inserted El Ali in that list last week. Are your going to delete my correction there as well? What are your credentials to claim I have a "conflict of interest?" The intentional disinformation and misinformation which you endorse under the "El Ali Meteorite" is disgraceful, if not defamatory. You seem to have a conflict of interest with scientifically verifiable truth. How can you claim to be authoratative when you cannot even cite the information published in the METEORITICAL BULLETIN correctly. To begin with, the weight of the meteorite is 15,500 kg as evidenced by the weight certificate provided by the Somali government, of which I have a photograph. There is no doubt that El Ali is in China and for sale. I can even supply the port city in which it is stored, though I don't see the relevance to this page. "Conflict of interest?" My interest is in scientifically evidenced truth. What, exactly, is your interest? I am the author who wrote the "history" section of that METEORITICAL BULLETIN entry! I continue to work closely with the five North American and five Somali researchers, with whom I talk to on a weekly basis. Look me up. http://people.duke.edu/gessler Nick Gessler (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, welcome to Wikipedia. I believe that C.Fred is mistaken to suggest you have a conflict. Expertise is not the same as a conflict, obviously. Citing yourself is a grey area, I think, but if you are an expert and it's a published piece of research, I think you are in the clear, others may disagree.

I would suggest you add what ever you can to the article, noting that:

1 - you can only add things from reliable sources - i.e. published papers. That does include offline sources (i.e. that certificate).

2 - please cite whatever changes you make. Even if you are are new to the interface, just try your best and someone will likely improve it. Or paste a link on the talk page and someone will help improve it.

Wikipedia can be intimidating, but it's just a bunch of volunteers (not colleugues) all trying to do our best. Please join us, and update and edit what ever you can to make improvements. CT55555(talk) 18:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of citing changes, let me ask this. What is the source for the alternate or extended name of "El Ali (Arabid) Ceel Cali (Somali) meteorite", which you added to the article in this edit? —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for the alternative names? It's your own Wikipedia webpage "El Ali." By the way it literally means "Ali's Well." As far as my not "citing myself," I would be citing the page of the METEORITICAL BULLETIN on EL ALI that refers to its true weight. That page was co-authored by Chris Herd and approved by the NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE of the METEORITICAL SOCIETY after they were given access to my protected web portal with some 8 videos, some 14 images, and dozens of other information relevant to EL ALI. Since you seem to value second and third hand reports from "the media" more than you do credible information, what is my incentive to argue with you about facts when you clearly don't know diddly squat about this meteorite? Nick Gessler (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, Wikipedia is not @C.Fred's or mine or yours. We're all volunteer editors. If you share a link to the information that is missing, I'd make the edits myself. The incentive, I hope, is a desire to improve this encyclopaedia, advance human knowledge. I think this is the 5th most popular website on the internet, so please do edit and cite. CT55555(talk) 23:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So who chooses the editors? Are they self proclaimed? Are they voted in, and if so, by whom? What is your expertise on the material addressed by this Wikipedia page? At least my name and website are available for anyone to evaluate. That's the transparency I've provided. How can you "advance human knowledge" by remaining opaque and anonymous? By the time I correct all the errors on this page I may as well submit a manuscript to a reputable journal. But by your rules, I cannot cite that. Nick Gessler (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I was trying to be helpful. But if you continue to be so abrasive, this might be the end of our chat.

We are all editing wikipedia, we are all editors, yourself included. Anyone in the world can do so and no credentials are needed.

There are no rules on Wikipedia. Only guidelines, which makes it a bit complicated, but despite the flaws, it does work.

Good luck with your work, CT55555(talk) 23:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from your reply: …co-authored by Chris Herd and approved by the Nomenclature Committee of the Meteoritical Society…^{[emphasis removed]}. In my opinion, review by the NC counts as editorial review, so the MB is a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. It's a usable source.
…when you clearly don't know diddly squat about this meteorite? The Wikipedia standard in question is WP:Verifiability. It's not what any editor knows about the subject, but what can be verified in published sources. As I stated before, If the MB backs up the statement, it can be added. Yes, frankly, you may be in a better position to edit the article because you have a head-start knowing about the subject—the same way I'd have a head-start on editing an article about a change in the US tax code, because of my day job.
So my last point is twofold about that. First, Wikipedia has guidelines about conflict of interest that are designed with the purpose of preventing people from editing about themselves, their companies, etc., in an unbalanced and promotional manner. Normally when a COI issue comes up, it's pretty clear-cut what's going on. This is an issue where, by the letter of the COI rules, you could be deemed to have a conflict of interest. But by the spirit of the rules (in that you are not promoting anything) and the spirit of your edits (scientific scepticism, neutral point of view, etc.), there's really not anything that should keep you from editing the article about the meteorite. —C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Me being abrasive? I don't presume to tell you about the tax code. Have some respect for the months/years I've spent working on EL ALI. I know how the editors of scientific journals are chosen, by the respect they've gained professionally and their mastery of the subject. Wikipedia editors, I would hope, were chosen in the same way. Nick Gessler (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this edit

Please explain this edit, specifically why you changed the article to read "17.1 tons" when the MB says 15.2 tons.

—C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The METEORITICAL BULLETIN is metric. The weight of the meteorite is 15,150 kilograms, which is 15.15 METRIC TONS. (Yes, I erred in saying 15,500.) It was the FINDERS who named it SKYFALL (emulating a James Bond movie). It was RECOGNIZED as a meteorite in 2020, but not OFFICIALLY identified as one until the BULLETIN entry in 2021. Now kindly get off my back and let a "Subject-Matter Expert" help improve this page? Yes, I will post an image of EL ALI in the LARGEST METEORITES page as soon as I can navigate through the obstacle course of contradictory rules. Nick Gessler (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Nick Gessler

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Nick Gessler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the page no longer exists. It seems there is NO transparence and NO consistency to Wikipedia's policies. Apparently, the protected hierarchy of established editors have dismissed the Wikipedia page "Please do not bite the newcomers" (which this editing portal says does not exist.) I receive numerous "cut-and-paste" scripted welcoming messages. But then attacks claiming that I am citing "unreliable sources" (specifically the METEORITICAL BULLETIN, which had been repeatedly cited many times before by previous editors). Then more attacks that I have a "conflict of interest." No one bothered to cite the Wikipedia articles: "Research help/Scholars and Experts" or "Subject-matter expert" which says "i.e. a Ph.D. in chemistry could be easily declared as an SME in chemistry." So a Ph.D. in Anthropology could easily be declared as an SME in Ahthropology. And Anthropology is all about cultural history, and in this case the cultural history of meteorites and meteoritics. I was transparent form the beginning, revealing my real name and introducing my Duke University webpage to the editors. Is the Wikipedia world so closed that editors did not bother to go outside of Wikipedia to check out my credentials? Assuming that they could not be bothered, I further introduced myself on my User Page which they deleted, without giving me the chance to object. So now we have a turf war of editors, most of whom hide behind invented names. None of them bothered to cite the Wikipedia "Ignore all rules" page. And at least Wikipedia recognizes some of its own faults: "Reliability of Wikipedia." I will not apolotize for the work I continue to put in to provide accurate and verifiable information on the El Ali meteorite. Maybe someone could patiently explain to me what my offense has been? Nick Gessler (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]