User talk:PlatoAristotle

Welcome!

Hello, PlatoAristotle, 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) 19:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi PlatoAristotle. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your edits to date are somewhat promotional with regard to Giving What we Can, its founders, and Oxford. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, PlatoAristotle. 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. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. 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.

Comments and requests

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. 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 (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with XXX, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Removed unsourced material, also in infobox. I have no connection to the person of any kind whatsoever.PlatoAristotle (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)--PlatoAristotle (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Given your focus on the people involved with the effective altruism group and the spam links to the oxford program your claim of no relevant real world relationships seems unlikely, but you have said what you have said.

If you like please have a look at User:Jytdog/How which I wrote to help people new to the community get oriented to the mission of Wikipedia and the policies and guidelines through which we try to realize the mission. See you around Wikipedia! Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think insinuating dishonesty is part of the code of Wikipedia. Before you call my edits spamming, please look at them. I removed a dead link. That is not spamming. I corrected the way a reference was described. It was described as an academic site, but it is the person's personal website. That is not spamming. I am first and foremost committed to the accuracy and standards of WP. My edits are based on that commitment.PlatoAristotle (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes what people do and what people say don't match. This happens. You are very new to Wikipedia and I do hope that you take time to learn how this place works. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.PlatoAristotle (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About your remark here, your continued claims of no connections to the oxcam philosophy community continue to not match your actions. Obsession with details like this and violating multiple policies to change content are hallmarks of conflicted editing in Wikipedia. One of the reasons we try to work with editors to manage conflict of interest is to prevent the kind of behavior you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can only repeat that I have no personal or professional connection to the Macascill, that I have never met him, nor have I any views on the subject and his projects, other than that I believe he does good work for a good cause. But I thank you for being such a vigilante Wikipedia user of the upper echelons. You are no doubt a great asset to the Wikipedia community, and I am fortunate to have you teach me how it all works.

Editing Wikipedia

We summarize reliable sources. That is all we do here. Using a ref like this to say he is no longer there as of 2017 is WP:OR and not OK in WP. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reference is to the official annually updated page of Lincoln College, Oxford, on which they list their Fellowship, and which is one click away from their home page. This is the most objective evidence there is. The Guardian is surely not a better source of who is a Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford, than Lincoln College, Oxford itself.

WP:OR is WP:OR. You cannot do that. We need a source that says "he left in 2017" or "he was there 2015 to 2017" or the like. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garbled -- look closely at what you did to the refs here -- http://www.lincoln.ox.ac.uk/LP-Fellowshttps://oxford.academia.edu/WilliamMacAskil and http://www.lincoln.ox.ac.uk/LP-Fellowshttp://www.lincoln.ox.ac.uk/LP-Fellows are not valid links. Please pay attention to what you are actually doing. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced content; Edit war warning

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Your recent editing history at William MacAskill 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) 14:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)With regard to the edit war warning, the purpose of the warning is to let you know that a) the appropriate thing to do is discuss disagreements on the article talk page (so, Talk:William MacAskill); b) if you keep just trying to force changes in that are not OK, you can indeed be blocked for edit warring. That would be a subsequent process.

With regard to the specifics, as already noted, please discuss content at the article talk page. I will say -- please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. We don't need to microtrack things, and all we can say in WP, is what reliable sources say. Especially on articles about living people. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]