User talk:142.68.40.241

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 142.68.40.241. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. 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, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

awards

I note that you have removed awards that are listed on other well known people's wikipedia pages. For example the 40 over 40 award is listed on Buzz Aldrin's page as follows : On May 24, 2023, he received the 40 over 40 award by Monaco Voice, calling him "Guardian of the Galaxy"., and numerous other individual's pages as well.. Unless you have some external criteria to define what awards are notable, I do not believe your expertise gives you the right to remove awards that others find notable.. again, without justification. 142.68.40.241 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also just found this reference on the wikipedia page of another awardee.. Cherie Blair: Recognition

She was recognized as one of the BBC's 100 women of 2013. In 2023, she was awarded the 40 over 40 award by Monaco Voice. 142.68.40.241 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have admitted to having a COI on the talk page. Attempting to promote this person is grossly inappropriate. MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the alterations that were made were factual.. updates to activities that brought the page up to date, and significant awards since 2016... and at least some of these awards that you removed from the list were added by others. Wikipedia pages should be factual, and not reflect people's opinions about the facts, but you consistently insert your opinions into revisions without giving justification for your actions. Under what guidelines have you decided which awards are notable and which are not? 142.68.40.241 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is widespread consensus on Wikipedia that only awards which are notable should be listed (that means Wikipedia:Notability, which is synonymous with 'has a preexisting Wikipedia article'). But that is secondary to the main point - which is you are a person with an admitted COI who is acting in a plainly promotional manner. You must stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was willing to leave this at your description of what constituted a 'notable award', which, while arbitrary, is at least concrete.. But it is offensive for you to argue that the few actions I have taken, including adding the net thrust of Krauss's articles for the last 3 years, which is neither promotional or demotional but just factual represent an effort to promote. Just because in your mind you have decided there is a POTENTIAL for COI doesn't mean there always is .. yet your actions and inclusions can be viewed to be the opposite a promotional.. I.e. biased.. or simply ridiculously based on some rule number rather than logic. If the article said, Krauss has a dog, and the reference was a picture Krauss posted of him having a dog, would you argue that one needed a secondary source from a verified news agency to verify that Krauss had a dog? Moreover, as some sort of punishment you have put this new warning label on a piece which as far as I can tell contains almost all material given by another assortment of people.. That shouldn't be there.

Moreover, while you claim to be somewhat unbiased, note for example that TWICE, not once, in the article the same reference to a statement Krauss made about Epstein is quoted.. Is it that important compared to the net body of his work described in other section headers that such a statement need be quoted twice?!! In the Career, read: " In 2011, Krauss defended his association with Epstein, saying "As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people." Then in a whole section with a caption "Relationship to Jeffry Epstein", again making it seem as if this is equally important as the sections "Career" "Scientific Work", "Activism" etc--a clear bias presumably on your part.. One finds, "In 2011, Krauss told an interviewer, "As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people...I don't feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it." It might be argued that you, or whoever has put all these things in the piece, has a COI..

If you really want Wikipedia to be what you suggest you want, you might consider the logic of what is there and whether it represents facts, and also not assume that anything that might not be negative is promotional, while anything that might be negative must be unbiased......

It is clear that any attempts I make to simply correct errors or improve or update the facts in this article or others will be rebuffed by gatekeepers like you who have lost sense of what the purpose of gatekeeping is... so you will be happy to know I will not be editing this or any other Wikipedia page from now on.. 142.68.40.241 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.