User talk:BrigKlyce

Please, add new comments at the end of pages - I moved your help request down there.  Chzz  ►  23:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome!

Hello, BrigKlyce, 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 discussion 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! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Gaia hypothesis do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Gaia hypothesis, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Panspermia

Welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately it takes a long time to get used to the way things operate here, however editors do not need to worry about all the details because someone will probably notice to any problems. Your first edit was to add an external link to a website and you should be aware that a lot of edits like that occur here—most of them are reverted for one reason or another. The guideline is WP:EL. I have mentioned you at the external links noticeboard, and you might like to see the discussion at WP:ELN#Panspermia. If you have any questions, feel free to reply here (see WP:TP for how-to information). Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction, he certainly has editted under Special:Contributions/Bklyce, and likely Special:Contributions/65.7.48.172. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gaia hypothesis. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Gaia hypothesis, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Other editors seeing this, Brig Klyce owns the panspermia.org blog, which is the link he inserted under this account and under Special:Contributions/Bklyce, and likely Special:Contributions/65.7.48.172. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bklyce. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gaia hypothesis. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Regarding the link itself: please do not add links to anything you wrote yourself, as you appear to be doing at that article. If your work meets the criteria of WP:EL, then an independent editor will add the link. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, specifically by adding inappropriate links. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

{{help me}}

The website at panspermia.org is the most visited website for "panspemia" on the Internet. That is because it is also the deepest resource for the topic. A link to panspermia.org was added to the Wikipedia "panspermia" page by others soon after the Wikipedia page was born. (Panspermia.org is older that Wikipedia by 4 years.) Now Ian.thomson has deleted the link because I, the author, have a degree in architecture! I would think that the content of the website is what matters, and ad hominem attacks would be disallowed. However, I am also a recognized authority on the topic of panspermia, having lectured, presented conference papers, and given invited interviews across the US and in Europe, for 15 years. (In January 2001, the SETI League invited me to address an audience that included several Nobel laureates.) Omitting a link to panspermia.org is a major oversight by Wikipedia. The coverage at panspermia.org is deeper than that offered by some of your allowed links. I would like to ask that Ian.thomson be restrained from his activity, which seems like a personal vendetta. An answer from someone other than Ian.thomson will be appreciated! BrigKlyce (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guideline External links:

It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked.

In other words, YOU should not be linking to panspermia.org --SPhilbrickT 23:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You may be an expert on the topic; or, you could be just adding misinformation - we cannot tell; therefore, we have a policy, which required reliable sources - such as, books, newspapers, and so on. Please see WP:VRS, WP:V.  Chzz  ►  23:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. How to respond is not exactly intuitive. Anyway, my step-father tried to reinstate panspermia.org, but Ian.thomson undid him too. Is the merit of the site not a consideration for Wikipedia???BrigKlyce (talk)

BrigKlyce please read the links to policies that others have provided above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Whatever the merit of the site is, the fact that you are adding a link to a site you own constitutes as promotional/spamming, something that is expressly forbidden in Wikipedia. You can, however, expand the article then use a page from the site as one of the references. Although be very careful not to push a point that has not gained widespread consensus and maintain a neutral tone at all times. That on the other hand would benefit Wikipedia instead of turning us into a link directory. Do note that again, anything you add must be independently verifiable in other sources. Any bias whatsoever will be removed.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read the policies. The site was originally added by others. Today it was again added by others. The site has more references than any other site you link to for panspermia. Would somebody explain what the real problem is?BrigKlyce (talk)

The way you added it is suspect. Characterizing it as 'the major site' when you own the site itself is a clear Conflict of Interest. Attempting to circumvent policy by adding it while logged out or by urging another newly created account is also suspect (be aware that creating alternate accounts without identifying them is forbidden and can get you banned under Wikipedia:Sock puppetry). Your account has no other edits other than to those articles making your account a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. All these factors make your edits more likely to be questioned.

Nobody is saying your site is a bad source. An independent editor has reviewed your link and added it to Panspermia for example. But please try to follow policy instead of engaging in needless confrontations. As recommended it might be better to use the site first as a references rather than external links to show good faith.

And do not edit war, as already warned above, it is highly disruptive and will get your account blocked. Try explaining your side to Ian.thomson first to reach a consensus. (P.S. please sign your messages in talk pages with --~~~~, or you can click the Signature and Timestap icon in the edit window)--Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have two suggestions:

1. The editors most interested in the subject matter are likely to read the article talk page. I suggest you propose, on the talk page, that the site should be added, explaining that you have been asked not to because of a COI. Others can evaluate the site and reach a conclusion.
2. We have an External links/Noticeboard precisely for debating these issues. It would make sense to bring it up there, where you might get a wider viewing.

One caution; a Wikipedia convention is to eschew forum shopping, so I would not advise simply posting to both places. Pick one or the other, and if that forum fails to reach a consensus, post tot he other, with a link to the first discussion so editors know about it.--SPhilbrickT 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You have had this explained to you repeatedly by multiple people

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Panspermia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Your site is a self-published source. Unless you provide something that is peer-reviewed, or credentials, your own work is not acceptable as a source (I am aware you also worked with a Richard Hoover, but he isn't notable, and the work is still not peer reviewed). Until then, it is not ad hominem to say that you are just an architect, any more than it would be for someone to say I'm just an English major if I hypothetically tried to promote a blog I wrote as a source on quantum mechanics. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

{{help}} (anyone but Ian.thomson) -- Today I added a link to a reference posted yesterday about work by Richard Hoover. The reference is a web article of which Richard Hoover is the lead author. Ian.thomson promptly undid it. Yes I happen to be the coauthor. The lead author, Richard Hoover, is a retired NASA astronomer and microbiologist who has chaired 13 annual panspermia conferences and is definitely a recognized authority. In my edit I asked your editors to at least look at the reference before deleting the link to it. Did he? The evidence is extremely convincing, important, well supported, and comes from an unassailable source, Richard Hoover. The link is http://www.panspermia.org/hoover4.htm. I realize that your policy makes my linking to it suspect. Maybe someone else could restore the link. The page _is_ the reference, and the primary source for the story, with previously unpublished photographs. In general, if your goal is to have well-informed, accurate articles, for Panspermia you should welcome my participation. Who else among your editors has studied the subject virtually fulltime for 20 years? BrigKlyce (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the above message is partially untrue - any credentials you supply would not affect the basic points;

• All information needs a reliable source, so it can be verified. Saying "I know it is true" is never acceptable
• If you add something to an article, and other people disagree, then you have to discuss it on the article talk page. See WP:DISCUSS. In such cases, do not try to add it again until there is consensus.

Your personal credentials do not affect anything at all, except that it means you have a conflict of interest, and need to be very careful regarding the policies and guidelines about that issue. Chzz  ►  18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It is possible to cite personal websites, if it is by a recognized authority (easiest standard, are they notable for such work? This is what I meant by credientials). Neither Klyce nor Hoover are notable for such work (fails WP:SPS), and the work is not peer reviewed (fails WP:RS). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, in response to the message left on my graffiti page: I'm not spamming my website, I'm sticking to the guidelines on sourcing, those are my qualifications. Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used. Your website is really no different than a blogspot page by a plumber, it is not peer reviewed, you are not notable for your work in the field. This is why it's not being used.Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

{{help}} an edit war seems to have re-erupted on the Panspermia page. Does a third party, not disputant ian.thomson, make a ruling? BrigKlyce (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed on ANI, so a helpme is superfluous at this stage.  Chzz  ►  22:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Panspermia. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

-- As the boilerplate suggests, I am seeking a consensus among your editors, but I see no evidence that any of them has looked that the reference "More Evidence for Indigenous Microfossils in Carbonaceous Meteorites" for which I am attempting to provide the link, [1]. BrigKlyce (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

... You've had this site's sourcing guidelines pointed out and explained multiple times. You keep pretending they haven't been. Could it be that you're in the wrong here? Could it be that your blog does not meet this site's standards? Could it be that other editors understand this and this is why you're not getting support? Actually, you are getting support, I've seen other editors get blocked by now for these shenanigans. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You're gonna get blocked

Just so you know, you're rocking the boat big time. You're prolly gonna get blocked. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

note -ani

Hi, I was wanting to try to explain to you - the external link http://www.panspermia.org/gaia.htm is not a WP:RS wikipedia reliable source and likely will not be allowed to be included on an article - the are locations to ask about this but you could also take users explanations for that fact. Also you are in danger of being blocked again - a couple of your edits have been a little personally attacking and that is not welcome here - as you seem like an intelligent chap I would prefer it if you contributed within policy and guidelines rather than get yourself blocked again, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

also there is a discussion regarding your contributions at the Administrators noticeboard here. Feel free to comment there if you want to defend your edits. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

fresh start

Hi Brig, your talkpage is a bit messy with all these templates, if you like I will archive them for you, to give a sort of fresh start to your talkpage, let me know if you would like me to do that for you, besrt regards. Off2riorob 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Panspermia, you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned about this many times before. Please stop this self-promotion. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

David, what is your official role at Wikipedia? BrigKlyce (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I see you have some Wikipedia credentials. Why do you campaign so hard against panspermia? It is not a "fringe theory" but an entirely serious hypothesis with growing support. BrigKlyce (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The progress of science... depends on the openness of world views which conflicts with the totalitarian pronouncements of many [scientists] — Paul Feyerabend, _The Tyranny of Science_ 2011. BrigKlyce (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, see WP:Forum. You have failed to explain why you have repeatedly tried to use Wikipedia for self promotion and advertising (spam), both are against Wikipedia conventions. Please stop now, thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not self promotion. I offered a link to a large fully referenced information and historical resource about Panspermia. It's a serious scientific theory with implications different from mainstream science, but if differing theories are censored, science is blinded. When science is healthy, censorship is unnecessary. BrigKlyce (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)