User talk:Andysbalmer

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Andysbalmer. 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 request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I read the policy on COI as an expert in a subject area. I came to the pages to add a new article I had published, but in doing so, I don't believe I added undue emphasis to my work in making the changes. I added plenty of extra content and improved the organisation the materials. I plan to make further additions after finding these pages and seeing that they have lots of information missing. I don't have time to do it today but intend on looking after the subset of pages on secrecy and lying from a sociological perspective. Andysbalmer (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I came to the pages to add a new article I had published, yes, that is the problem. You were here to add a paper you published, not to improve the encyclopedia in general. Adding 'extra content' is not a tax you pay in order to be able to cite yourself. MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The guidance is clear that the terms of the COI allow self-citation by subject experts. I am a subject expert on this topic. Acknowledging how I found the page doesn't warrant your unfair implications by seizing on a phrasing of "extra content", which need not signify a hidden financial logic which you imply it does. Instead, in the context of what I said, it is clear I meant it to mean that I had added content beyond the content you identify as problematic. You can see that I added content beyond a reference to the paper I authored. It is fine to remove the citations to my own work, but nonsensical to undo all the changes I made. Let's improve the pages. Andysbalmer (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems I can't undo your reversion. Could you undo the ones for 'secrecy', 'sociological aspects of secrecy' and 'simmel' and I will remove the self-citations, allowing us to preserve the other changes I made. Andysbalmer (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Self citation is allowed when it is not excessive. Adding a citation to yourself on every page (or even just most pages) you edit is excessive. - MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a misunderstanding of what the COI means by excessive. It does not mean what you say here, but rather how significant the citations made are within the text of the page. So if I cited my work, for instance, 20 times on this page, that would be clearly excessive. Once or twice on a long page, alongside other citations is evidently not excessive. You have misused the COI terms. Andysbalmer (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to get clarification over at WP:COIN or WP:TEAHOUSE, but given how new you are here please do not try to explain what the policy means to me. MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please help resolve the issue with involvement of VViking since the pages are being reverted to original despite removal of all references to my own work. If we cannot agree on the COI policy immediately (as seems to be the case) then we can surely agree on the content I have added outside of the contested content. Andysbalmer (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have asked for your consensus on the talk page. I was using the wrong talk page until now. Andysbalmer (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss/Edit Warring
Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies the process is new to me. This was a reversion to bring back the changes I had made, to allow me to then remove the self-citations at the request of user MrOllie. I will find another way to do it, less quickly. Andysbalmer (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Andysbalmer! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't reverted them several times, though. I have edited the pages again to 'revert' only the content that the user MrOllie incorrectly claimed to be a breach of COI. The pages clearly no longer include any references to my own work. I am going to use WP:COIN to explore the issue further. Andysbalmer (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was using the wrong talk page. I have asked for MrOllie's consensus on the most recent updates I made. Can you agree that these are fine and that the COI can be resolved later. Andysbalmer (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)