User talk:Siefert

Welcome

Hello, Siefert, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

License tagging for Image:George fox.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George fox.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SynopticFIgure ofChristianDenominations.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:SynopticFIgure ofChristianDenominations.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Synoptic Diagram of Christian Denominations

A tag has been placed on Synoptic Diagram of Christian Denominations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synoptic Diagram of Christian Denominations

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Synoptic Diagram of Christian Denominations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Synoptic Diagram of Christian Denominations. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synoptic Diagram of Christian Religions

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Synoptic Diagram of Christian Religions, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synoptic diagram of Christian denominations

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Synoptic diagram of Christian denominations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Issoltitle.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Issoltitle.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:MeetingsMedalsPres.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:MeetingsMedalsPres.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crusio (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Issoltitle.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Issoltitle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jews

Hi. Please be careful, you removed Monochrome Monitor's comment with your last edit. Thanks. El_C 02:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Thanks! Siefert (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Regards, El_C 04:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello, I'm Moxy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging

The @ sign in front of a user name is generally used to denote a ping. A ping sends a notification to the other editor (you've probably gotten a few). If you want to ping another editor write (for example) {{ping|NeilN}} and add a signature at the end of your post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jews

Please be aware of our edit warring and WP:3RR policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of scholars

@Tgeorgescu Its not my list. It's from a published paper, reference cited. Siefert (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some scholars from the list you added at Biblical archaeology actually lived before the minimalism-maximalism debate. So, it is anachronistic to call them either minimalists or maximalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That nots my list. Its a published list from Jonathan BUrke publication, reference cited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siefert (talk • contribs)

Well, who's Jonathan Burke and why should we believe him? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Biblical archaeology, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So did you see the 7 original peer reviewed references that you deleted? YOu are editorlizing without academic credentialsSiefert (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SYNTH. And then read it again. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Siefert, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to BIblical archaeology have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. The table was copyright and we cannot have copyright material in our articles. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not argue any of these points. I did think that I had covered the copyright by multiple attributions to him through citing tags. After looking for Burke's citation for the article I do not think it is a valid reference to use. Siefert (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, as a rough guide, about 240 words is ok. But it wouldn't be ok if it was a whole poem, for instance. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using books as sources

In general we expect page numbers if you are going to use a book as a source. Please provide them in the future. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. If the entire book is being referenced as a review source, how is that accomplished? THere are times when specific points are being made and I did include specific pages on those.Siefert (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'll have to attribute such statements to other reliable sources. Otherwise what we have is your interpretation of what they contain. Sometimes you can reference a chapter, but you need more for a whole book. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: , this is Janet again. I will be going to the library beginning of next week to check on all of these references, but here is my problem that remains. In this case: "For a thorough interpretation of the historicity of the Hebrew texts consistent with decades of archaeological research, see Kitchen (1), Hoffmeier (3), Gordon and Rendsburg (2), Rendsburg (8), and Hoffmeier (4). These scholars give a detailed and measured account of thousands of documents and artifacts, cross referenced to the ancient Hebrew documents, placed in chronological order.." These references are books and articles that are filled with details and document references. The statement is similar to this scenario: if one was creating a wikipedia article explaining biochemistry and pointed to several books that outline the basics of biochemistry. How in that case would you reference individual pages? Later I do provides specific examples and points supported by pages for the points that the archaeologists make. Again, a similarity would be if you were going to detail the Krebbs cycle from that same biochemistry webpage, you would then list the pages. As an academic, which I am at RIce University, this is the way one would write a review article.Siefert (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an ex-academic myself I sympathise. Writing articles here is extremely different and many people have problems adjusting to it. I used to be reverted for similar reasons. Biochemistry is in fact a good example of an article using page references. I have more comments but they are too difficult to make on my iPad. Doug Weller talk 07:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up

There was recently an SPI due to the strong similarity between your editing and that of Korvex, in which a CU found nothing. I am seeing the similarity in your editing and behavior too. Please see this ANI thread. That is where you are heading. Please edit neutrally. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am being very diligent in editing neutrally. Siefert (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog on what basis did you remove the edits? You are editorilizing without any merit. This has been discussed for weeks now. Siefert (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article content should be discussed on the relevant article talk page. I'll respond there, if you ask there. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPA, Advocacy, etc

Above I pointed you to the ANI of Korvex, to which you didn't respond. I suggest you read it, carefully.

Please also read WP:SOAPBOX and WP:YESPOV, which are both policy, and also WP:SPA, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:Civil POV pushing. Really, please read them, so you are informed about how the community responds to what you have been doing in Wikipedia. There is nothing new under the sun. You are not the first to behave this way, and you will not be the last. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jews - Origin section". 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 24 March 2017.

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. 23:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction demanded

You have accused me and others of antisemitism. You have two options: either you use <s> and </s> in order to retract your claim or you provide evidence for your claim. Failure to do so will be reported at WP:ANI. Also take time to read WP:NLT: the next legal threat you will make inside Wikipedia will take care that you will be blocked indefinitely. Just to be clear: Wikipedia admins cannot stop you from suing someone, but they are able to stop you from editing Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. It's a ludicrous claim. I block editors making antisemitic statements. How could I be antisemitic? Doug Weller talk 07:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jews - Origin section, 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) 01:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

contact

If you want to contact me confidentially, you can email me from my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in WIkipedia

Hi Siefert, I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date including creation and editing of Janet Siefert and George E. Fox as well as editing of W. Mark Lanier. It appears that you are not aware of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline, so I am providing you notice of that, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Siefert. 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, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate 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).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. 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. You have an WP:APPARENTCOI at the Janet Siefert and other two articles due to your username and claims you have made about yourself for example here and here and here. We generally assume good faith about people who edit under their own name per WP:REALNAME but would you please disclose your connection with regard to these people? (I know this probably seems baroque and fussy as you have been fairly transparent, but we take OUTING very seriously and you have not been completely clear anywhere in WP that I have found; you have just been kind of casual).

After you reply, I can walk you through how the second "peer review" step works here in Wikipedia.

Just pinging User:DGG and User:Doug Weller on this as they have been interacting with you as well

Best regards Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Janet Siefert, George Fox was my PhD advisor, and W. Mark Lanier is a teacher from whom I have taken classes.Siefert (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify why this was asked, there have in the past been problems with one person pretending to be someone else and writing a bio of them, sometimes a very problematic bio. When the names are similar or identical, it helps to have explicit confirmation that you're that person. It may seem so utterly obvious to you as to be a little ridiculous, but all sorts of strange things happen around here. We've learned to be very scrupulous about anything involving living people. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the disclosure Janet. So you have a COI for those three articles, as we define that here in Wikipedia. (See WP:COISELF in particular).

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Siefert - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I am Janet Siefert and have a conflict of interest with regard to that article as well as related people" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance about what is OK and what isn't).

I added a tag to the three articles' talk page, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. And no author at the top of the page, so that readers know who wrote an article, and can read the article in light of who the authors are. And likewise, no COI disclosures on a given article, as there are in scientific publications. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk pages - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. You can also add a {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about say a birth date) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the three articles or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what your autobio needs is the dates of the degrees and positions, and a link to the 3 or 4 most cited papers--citations is the basis for academic notability according to WP:PROF. I do not consider that needs review--all of it is perfectly straightforward if it is cited. . For your advisor, it again depends on the whether the content is purely objective. What needs review is anything in the nature of judgments. For background, I wrote the article for my own PhD advisor, Gunther Stent, without asking anyone to review it. The problem is with articles having content that can be reasonably challenged. The part of your work here that has actually been reasonably challenged is the material on religion; as it is not your profession but your personal interest, you do not by our standards have a conflict of interest there. jytdog, consider whether you are letting the conflict over that material spill over into unreasonable requests here. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very standard stuff;

a) the COI tag was placed on the autobiographical article here by an admin in 2009, and DGG tagged it for Notability recently here.

b) the COI guideline has talked about writing about yourself and people with whom you are close as a category of COI since..... at least 2008, and even that version contained the seeds of our COI management practice of disclosing and avoiding direct editing, which is laid out more clearly in the current version of the guideline.

What I have written here is the same thing that I do with regard to any editor who is editing where they have a COI and appears to be unaware of the COI guideline. Didn't mention the religious stuff here, as I see no COI there. There is some WP:ADVOCACY which is a related issue, but that is not COI as we define it.

Also want to add, that there is an unfortunate notion out there, that COI is somehow "dirty" or something. It isn't. They just exist, and they need to be managed. They can lead to bad content and to behavioral issues, which is why they are generally managed the same way for everybody, regardless of what they are actually doing. When I worked on these issues in academia some profs would get so offended by what they perceived as attacks on their integrity. It was never about that; it is always a general best practices thing, to manage the risk of problems arising which if they actually happen harm everybody involved. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice

I have some advice that will hopefully make your editing easier: our task is to render the mainstream academic views, not to change them. We render the arguments that mainstream academics find persuasive, not the arguments we personally find persuasive. Further, we acknowledge majority views as majority views and minority views as minority views (speaking of mainstream academics). Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]