User talk:Gyu93

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Roger Pearson 1927! Thank you for your contributions. I am WeijiBaikeBianji and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Roger Pearson 1927. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Roger Pearson (anthropologist), you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Roger Pearson (anthropologist)

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit that introduces praise or promotional language to the Roger Pearson (anthropologist) article. On Wikipedia, we adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV) and avoid promotional language or puffery. Please read the NPOV policy page, as well as [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch|this page of language to avoid]] to better understand how to expand this article in a style suitable to an encyclopedia. If you have questions, please see the Help Desk page. Thank you! Kev ^(talk) 15:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Your recent editing history at Roger Pearson (anthropologist) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Pearson, or an associate of his?

At different points, you've referred to Pearson in the third person (not merely in the article, but in conversations with other editors where someone would refer to themselves in first person), and yet you also give the impression that you are Pearson. Is this a shared account? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to find someone soliciting personal information about a Wikipedia user. I can't imagine that Wikipedia encourages that sort of thing. You might further be grateful to learn that some might mistake the question "Is this a shared account?" as implying your query to be 'official' in some way. Others still could mistake the query as representing subtle intimidation. Many thanks for your understanding.--Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great job assuming good faith there. Your user name implies that you are Pearson, but you've referred to Pearson in the third person at points. That's obviously going to cause some curiosity. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll ask officially. WP:REALNAME statesL

"Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person.

If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided.

If you have been blocked for using your real name, please don't take offense; we're trying to prevent somebody from impersonating you (or impersonating someone you share a name with). You are welcome to use your real name, but in some cases, you will need to prove you are who you say you are. You can do this by sending an email to info-en@wikimedia.org; be aware that emails are handled by a volunteer response team, and an immediate reply is not always possible.

Given what you've said, I'm of the opinion that you need to identify yourself properly. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's Noticeboard notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is We've either got a shared account, an impersonator, or a COI SPA that we need more eyes on. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above block is no longer applicable, since you've requested a change of username. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

According to Wikipedia a person who uses an editing name that deliberately alludes to (among other situations) the person about whom is being edited, in doing so, that user is behaving quite correctly in relation to WP 'realnames' rules as long as that person either is or has close relations with that person (and nothing this Wikipedian has stated either on talk pages or as an editor has given any reason to doubt that). It should be clear to all I would have thought that in doing so I was openly and transparently decrying this user's close relations with Pearson. However the relevant unblocking instructions state that unless one actually IS the person (i.e. not including a person with close relations to that person) one should request a new username by entering the code (with which I started this section) into one's talk section so at this juncture Wikipedia rules do not permit me to rectify the situation while keeping this account's original username. I certainly don't mind this - I was merely trying to declare my closeness to Pearson in an open way in first place so that as long as I am still doing everything quite properly in relation to Wikipedia rules then it makes no difference to me. This entry, together with insertion as instructed of the code {{unblock-un|Gyu93}}, is my attempt to follow those instructions exactly. Thus I am hereby requesting Gyu93 as my new username. --gh38999 10:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just curious if you've read the discussion at the administrators' noticeboard that concerns you? If you didn't, no problem; it just gives more reasons for the block. Basically, we really weren't sure whether you were claiming to be Pearson or whether you were someone else, in part because of the way you answered questions on the issue. Nobody's ever registered "Gyu93", so you should be good to go with that name, and I've unblocked you. Go to WP:CHU to make your request, and if you'd like help with that page, just ask me for help by going to my talk page and leaving a note. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Your recent editing history at Roger Pearson (anthropologist) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear that my recent corrections are in no way evidence of MY being engaged/guilty of 'edit war'. Indeed quite to the contrary my many contributions (corrections to the entry) of this evening have been reversed almost in their absolute entirety whereas I have not reverted any of said deletions that have been made against me. I have been meticulous in changing only one thing at a time and in giving as full an explanation as possible for each correction. I must object to the way that my corrections have almost entirely simply been reversed. In that respect an edit war has developed this evening and I am the victim of it. All my corrections were very proper in terms of Wikipedia protocol. These corrections are particularly unjust given that I was called upon other editors in November to give my time to make the entry in question more accurate. --gh38999 23:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Roger Pearson (Anthropologist)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 March 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Roger Pearson (Anthropologist), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 09:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)