User talk:DeanKamen

Wikipedia
Dear Dean Kamen, Quiddity requested that I look at your edits and help out. Alas, I didn't not get around to it until now due to real world commitments. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers. Even as an administrator, I get paid exactly the same as any other editor.

It seems likely you may have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia's purpose: A neutral encyclopedia of all knowledge built upon citations to reliable sources. Neutrality is foremost our goal—essentially our Prime Directive.

While many Wikipedia editors have subject matter expertise, experts are frequently frustrated by editing articles they seem to be most qualified to write. Editors who know nothing about the topic revert their edits, add tags demanding citations, and rearrange their topic organization. Much of the paradox stems from Wikipedia's need for verifiable sources which require original research and synthesis to be removed. What is obvious to an expert is frequently a completely different experience for a layman. Based on the need for verifiability, it should be evident that raising hypothetical scenarios or doing even minimalistic marketing research are contrary to our goals.

Unfortunately, frequent editors spend a good deal of time countering spammers promoting their interests. This leads, inexcusably, to a tendency to presuming bad faith of those editing contrary to the rules. In this case, Quiddity did an admirable job handling things. Perhaps if you review your talk page history now you'll see it wasn't as bad as you thought.

It's too bad your experience with Wikipedia came from this direction. I'm sure you have plenty to contribute, and we welcome you to do so in the future. —EncMstr (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What you are trying to say is that someone who does not know anything about the PUMA has more power to control what is said than the person who has develop and build the PUMA? Is that correct? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanKamen (talk • contribs)


 * Not at all. Editors with subject matter knowledge are more likely to be aware of references, particularly the paper kind.  Expanding and organizing articles, and backing up statements ("citing") are easier and more natural for experts.  However, conflict of interest and point-of-view bias are hard to move beyond when one is closely related to a topic.
 * I don't think in terms of control or power necessarily, but if there is an "authority", then it is our community standards, codified in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which specify what is to be said. Non-experts can usually apply this autonomously.  Occasionally experts are called for, such as presently at Path 15.  One of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia is that verifiability is more important than truth.  —EncMstr (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone higher up in Wikipedia that I could talk to about this issue? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanKamen (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not sure which issue you mean, but you can try to find an appropriate forum in the dispute resolution guideline which, naturally enough, is concerned with dispute resolution between editors. Possibly you want to question a policy or guideline.  For that, I'm not so sure, but an inquiry on the associated policy or guideline talk page would be a good place to start.  For example, if you felt the conflict-of-interest policy needs refinement, try WT:COI, the talk page for WP:COI.  —EncMstr (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So instead of giving me an answer, you just give me a lot of paperwork? Is this a joke right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanKamen (talk • contribs)
 * Since I didn't understand what you are asking—and you have yet to clarify it—I answered in such a way that you could investigate appropriate topics at your leisure. My best guess is that you think that you should be editing articles about your companies, or those of competitors since you have more knowledge about them than most people.  —EncMstr (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Gaza flotilla raid has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it was unconstructive?
 * Because, well... It is obvious that you feel strongly about the issue covered in that article, which is quite understandable. However, Wikipedia must only use information that is sourced to reliable, professional publications. Your edit removed a great deal of sourced material, and replaced it with material that was not sourced. I know that you may argue that the sources are biased, but since everyone has different opinions on things of this nature, you should make a note on the discussion page of the article and explain why the sources should not be trusted. Simply removing sourced material, unless it is simple vandalism or direct attacks on specific people, should generally not be done. J.delanoy gabs adds  03:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Gaza flotilla raid. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below. This was necessary since your editing was highly disruptive in an article that already is subject to repeated editing conflicts. &mdash; Sebastian 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your question: Sorry, you do not have a right to delete whole sections that you disagree with, and "speak your mind" on an article page, as you did here. The reason I wrote "highly disruptive" is because this article is currently edited by many people, so that each of your edits, and its reversion, causes potential edit conflicts. I usually warn people before blocking them, but I felt that quick action was needed for that reason. &mdash; Sebastian 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (By the way, don't take this as undue harshness; though one of our principles here is Assume Good Faith, we do feel it necessary to take extra verification steps when users assert they are prominent public figures. We've had to do exactly the same thing over the weekend with an account claiming to be Senator Carl Levin.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)