User talk:PamKayJohnson

Welcome!

Hello, PamKayJohnson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Martin Eberhard, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PamKayJohnson. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:PamKayJohnson. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=PamKayJohnson|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, do not edit further until you answer this message. David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PamKayJohnson (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)David Gerard ScottishFinnishRadishThank you for the information. I am most certainly not being paid. I have a real job, thank you very much. I am a long time personal associate/friend (since 50 years) of Martin Eberhard and have first hand knowledge of his experiences. My interest in this page being accurate is to ensure the story is told not as I want it to be told, but as it did actually happen. This is not about my opinion nor your opinion. Other editors have gotten on here repeatedly and added slanderous claims and insults song with behaviour that is barred by disparagement agreements. Other authors are affected by what they've seen and heard, but do not have first hand personal knowledge. Of course, I want to adhere to all rules and standards and I apologise if I have not done so. I am new at this. Regarding the "true story", If you'd like, I'll ask Martin to make his own wiki account and get on here and tell you himself.PamKayJohnson (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Martin Eberhard. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you for the warning. Please see my note above. I am not reverting to my "preferred version", but the version as I know it first hand to be. As mentioned above, I do want to adhere to all rules and standards, at the same time, there is a team of unidentified authors who have ulterior motives and when I see changes that are slanderous or destructive, I will undo them. Regarding the citing of statements, I'll make sure to do a better job. My apologies for that PamKayJohnson (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PamKayJohnson, that is a perfect example of your preferred version. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model, with discussion when there is disagreement to achieve consensus about how to proceed. The only thing you have carte blanche to revert is WP:VANDALISM and BLP violations. If there is a good faith content dispute you cannot just revert. You also should not speculate on the motives of other users. David Gerard for instance has been editing Wikipedia for nearly twenty years and has almost 190,000 edits. To think that he has some ulterior motives in editing is thinking that he has played a Soviet era KGB style long game in order to disparage one person. I strongly suggest you read some of the guidelines linked above, and pay particular note to the Conflict of Interest links. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish I apologise if I've been insulting to David. However I did address my concerns immediately and directly to him on his talk page, before I made any reverts, and he did not answer me. This made me feel concerned. Indeed, my questions about motives relate specifically to the slew of unidentified users who edit and revert without discussion. I will indeed read the links you recommend that I read. Regarding a "perfect example of my preferred version", I do not understand what you mean. If there is slander on the page, I literally am not allowed to remove it unless the people who performed the slanderous links also agree? How do I even talk to them if they are in anonymous mode, editing only with IP addresses? I understand the point about consensus, but when the Telsa site itself claims Martin as a founder and then some unidentified author edits Martin's page and says "Eberhard -claims- to have co-founded Tesla", then something is seriously wrong. How does one engage in a conversation with authors who are in stealth mode? Should it not be allowed to revert such edits unless they wish to make and account and engage in a discussion to reach a consensus? Many thanks again for your kindness and patience towards me. I really do just want to do the right thing PamKayJohnson (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PamKayJohnson, you said but the version as I know it first hand to be, which would be your preferred version. You've also edit warred over the external links. Again, I highly recommend you read over the WP:COI guidelines, as it is strongly discouraged to edit an article when you have a conflict of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish David Gerard I have answered the question from David. Thank you. I have read the COI. Yet a COI warning has been put onto the page, without respect for my concerns that I have raised about unidentified authors making changes that are slanderous. I have stopped the "edit war" and am only trying to understand how it is defined that I have a conflict of interest when I seek only to remove slanderous content from a page and how to engage in talk with anonymous authors. I am not being paid. The person is my friend, yes, I care what people say about him. Yet that people with an interest to slander him have more weight than those who seek to remove the slander and don't get slapped with a COI? Don't they also have a conflict of interest? We don't know, since their identities are hidden. The slander is clear (conflicts with information on tesla's site, on marc tarpenning's site, etc. What is a person to do when this happens?? thank you very much PamKayJohnson (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PamKayJohnson, as you have said but I have extremely close links with the subject at hand and personal knowledge of the person and the facts at hand it pretty much proves a bog standard WP:COI. There are more people looking at the article now so anything that is legitimately slanderous, or unsourced, will likely be removed fairly quickly. You can also raise any edits you think are an issue on the article talk page, or even my talk page, if you think it's an issue. If a long-term pattern of vandalization or BLP violations becomes apparent then we can ask to have the page protected from unregistered and new editors. You can also engage with IP editors on the talk page, same as you engaged with David Gerard and myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadishThank you very much. That makes me feel much better. If I see anything slanderous on the page, I can let you know or engage the IP user themselves. I had tried using talk, but that did not work before. Perhaps I was making a mistake. I have a question about how to get the COI flag removed from the page. Can I edit and provide citations for the text? Or should you tell me what needs a citation? I am happy to comply as you advise. Many thanksPamKayJohnson (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PamKayJohnson, you can request an edit on the talk page, and provide citations there. Then other users can make sure there's no issues that tend to show up when someone edits with a conflict of interest and they'll add it to the article. The COI tag likely won't be around too much longer, assuming you're requesting edits on the talk page, rather than editing the article itself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Martin Eberhard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PamKayJohnson, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PamKayJohnson! 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 experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)