User talk:Peter Emerson

Welcome!

Hello, Peter Emerson, 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:

The five pillars of 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)
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! JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emerson's Taxonomy of Decision-making (February 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Emerson's Taxonomy of Decision-making and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Emerson's Taxonomy of Decision-making concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Emerson's Taxonomy of Decision-making, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Emerson's Taxonomy of Decision-making

Hello, Peter Emerson. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Emerson's Taxonomy of Decision-making".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Emerson's Taxonomy of Decision-making

Hello, Peter Emerson. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Emerson's Taxonomy of Decision-making".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 17:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello, I'm GnomeSweetGnome. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Thank you. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GnomeSweetGnome. Ah, I see. I had wanted to put in the term "Consensus Voting" which is, after all, a concept that very few people are aware of. Indeed, it is extraordinary: people talk about electoral systems - FPTP, AV, MMP, PR-STV etc., but hardly any discuss the various voting methodologies which can be used in decision-making (unless, of course, they overlap). Nevertheless, on the BBC etc., you never hear them talk about multi-optional let alone preferential forms of decision-making with terms like the Borda and Condorcet rules. And if I were to click on the term "Consensus Voting" I would not find anything. So, here's the obvious question: would you like me to write a page for "Consensus Voting"?

You have a conflict of interest with the subjects you are writing about. Your edits have been either to promote yourself by adding your own papers or your organization (de Borda). The guideline linked above states:

COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts. Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead.

Please use talk pages to suggest edits instead of promoting your own interests. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GnomeSweetGnome, I have in fact been trying to not promote the de Borda Institute, per se, let alone myself. (I'm too old for that, anyway.) But Einstein could not talk about relativity without promoting himself to a certain extent, and while I'm definitely not in the same league, I cannot talk about the matrix vote, for example, without promoting the de Borda Institute, because I invented that voting procedure. The latter has not been recognised by most media and academia, partly because there is a terrible bias in the western world which thinks that democracy is based on majority rule, but majority rule was (not the but) a cause of violence in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Rwanda, and throughout the Middle East for example. Suffice to say I always try to be objective and fair; and I still think Wikipedia and the world could benefit from a page on "Consensus Voting".

That is exactly why there are conflict of interest guidelines. If you cannot write on the subject without promoting yourself or your organization then you shouldn't write on the subject at all. If you are paid to make these edits you must disclose this fact (the relevant guidelines are at WP:PAYDISCLOSE) but if you feel that an article on Consensus Voting might benefit Wikipedia, you can always make a request at WP:RA. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GnomeSweetGnome, I can assure you my work on consensus voting is voluntary and that no-one in the de Borda Institute has ever received a wage.

In the course of this conversation you have made two more edits ([1] and [2]) to articles you have a COI in. Please take a moment to read WP:COIEDIT as it makes it clear you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly and should instead propose changes on talk pages (to which you can call attention by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed before being published. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GnomeSweetGnome, OK, I think I've got the picture.