User talk:G nikiforov

January 2018
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. Unfortunately I do not understand what you mean by "commentary", "my own point of view", or "my own personal analysis". Everything that I have written is well sourced from independent documents, many of which are published on the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology homepage itself. None of the information that I have added is a commentary, my point of view, or my personal analysis. Please be more specific in your comment and the reasons for deleting valid information from third parties. Until then I have restored the edit. ? G nikiforov (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please explain, then, how you obtained the sound clip which you included and claim as your own work. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is very simple. The sound clip is a recording of a statement that Dean Arbuthnott made in front of me and another person. Since I made the recording, the sound clip is my own work. The statement contained in the sound clip, however, does not represent my own point of view, my own personal analysis, and is not a commentary. It is the statement of the Dean of Faculty Affairs at OIST and I have included it exactly as it is in order to avoid distortion of his words. Does this make sense?G nikiforov (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. But it calls into question whether you have a conflict of interest in the OIST article, since you were there to record the statement. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I have not written any of my opinion here. I have not distorted in any way the quote, nor have I taken it out of context. I have not expressed my opinion on the matter either.G nikiforov (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it does not make sense. wikipedia is not the first place for publication of such claims, see WP:PRIMARY. If you continue, I will have to block you per WP:NOTTHERE. Please sourt you issues out outside Wikipedia. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it does make sense. However, your point that Wikipedia is not the first place for such publications is valid. Thank you.


 * I have changed the edit so that in contains only previously published data or original result, is written in a neutral voice, and is 100% verifiable by sources that are exclusively present on the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology website http://www.oist.jp published by the media section of OIST.
 * You have apparently still not actually read the Neutral Point of View policy fully because this "neutral" edit still does not comply with that policy. The part about due and undue weight does not support your newest attempt to get this information into the article.  The section you added more than doubled the length of the article, turning it into something that is really about this one event and happens to mention the school and its programs.  It is not clear why you are so intent on inserting negative information or how one accidental death of a school employee is so significant or notable.  Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page of that article before you make any further disruption to the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I did read the Neutral Point of View policy. This is what is says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I have included all "reliable sources", and all of these reliable sources happen to be published on the website of OIST. There is absolutely no additional information on the subject, let alone information which presents an alternative point of view. Please correct me if I am wrong on that point. If I am not wrong, that means that my edit is neutral, as there is absolutely no information that could make it "more neutral".
 * On the other hand I do agree that my edit constitutes a disproportionate part of the entire article. However, I have put significant effort into shortening my edit as much as possible, since in fact there is a lot more information on this case which I have not included. Would you suggest creating a new separate article in that case?
 * I would like to ask you not to refer to my edit as a "disruption", because this implies a preconceived negative bias on your part. Such a bias cannot be independently verified and as such is a violation of the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy and the Verifiability policy. The information that I am including is not "negative", it is all the information that is on the subject of a death of a person, which is sourced directly from OIST itself. I am not responsible for the kind of information which comes out of OIST.
 * I would also like to ask you not to refer to the death as "accidental" if you do not have reliable published sources to base your statement on. Have you read the sources that I have cited in the article? They present the opinions of independent professors and experts that I have absolutely no connection to who have done a thorough investigation on the subject. If you read those sources, you will see that the view of these independent experts suggest that the death is not "accidental". Please let me know based on which published reliable sources do you state that the death was "accidental". If you fail to do so, this would imply that your qualification of the death as "accidental" is once again a violation of the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy and Verifiability policy.
 * Prior the death, the person who died told his mom not to worry if he does not come back from work. This is well documented in the sources that I have linked prepared by the independent external panel. Which university employee anywhere around the world in their right mind would tell their mom not to worry if they don't come back from work? This would only be appropriate for a soldier in a warzone who is about to go on a mission. It is not normal for a university employee in a developed country to believe that he might die at work.
 * If you still think that the death was "accidental", please read thoroughly another source that I have linked. This is what the source says :
 * "According to the panel’s findings, there was no detailed diving plan, and no risk assessments were conducted prior to the high-risk diving operation. The diving equipment was not suited for the task, and the staff involved in the incident did not meet the training criteria to use it. The missing diver had pending health examinations that should have been performed prior to any diving work. On the day of the diving operation, there was no emergency plan, no spare equipment, supervisor or back-up diver available on site, and basic diving safety rules such as the “buddy system” were ignored. There was pressure to complete the work as the missing diver was soon to leave OIST."
 * These are words of the current president of OIST. What he says is that the work was very high risk, there was no plan for it, no risk assessments, no emergency plan, no spare equipment, no supervision, safety rules were utterly ignored, the equipment was not suited, the person who died was not properly trained, he had not passed the required medicals, and he was pressured to complete the work. And on top of all that was the harassment issue which the independent panelists describe in detail. Do you still think the death was "accidental"?
 * The information is important to be included in the article, because it illustrates very well the kind of place that OIST is. People who look into that university who might potentially be interested in joining it need to know what kind of place it is. This would prevent other mothers in the future to get messages from their children that they might not come back from work. Again, all the information comes directly from the OIST homepage. None of it is something that I made up, and I have not put any undue emphasis on any of the sides.
 * What I have described in my edit is not an isolated case. If you Google "Save the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST) GU" you can find a petition and a number of comments underneath that I have absolutely no connection to. It is a completely different case, but the one thing in common are the people who are at the bottom of it - the executives at OIST.
 * I hope this answers your questions. Can I reinstate my edit, or should I create a separate Wikipedia article on this case? Thank you.G nikiforov (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to be bothering, but I am still waiting for a reply as to why some of the editors think that the death was "accidental", if no data supports that claim. If the occurrence is not accidental (as the information published on the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology website does state that an independent panel of experts which was summoned by the president of the institute himself has linked the death to the management style at OIST) and it's a death of a human being we are talking about, why is such information not worthy of a Wikipedia article?G nikiforov (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , you do not appear to understand what the word "accident" means in this context. The links you posted, most especially the report prepared for the Institute, show that no other human being intentionally caused the untimely death of the employee. This is an accidental death.  The National Association for Medical Examiners, the most authoritative source for medico-legal determinations of manner and cause of death, defines the manner of death as an accident: "... when an injury or poisoning causes death and there is little or no evidence that the injury or poisoning occurred with intent to harm or cause death. In essence, the fatal outcome was unintentional." The death you have been arguing in favor of including fits that description according to your own sources.  Whatever organizational failings may have existed, no other person tried or intended to cause their death.  I hope that satisfies your question.  Continuing to attack that point will only convince the administrators to continue the block placed on this account -- a result that helps nobody.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for WP:NOTTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.

I am sorry, I still have not received a reply to the question why the moderator Eggishorn refer to the death that I covered as "accidental" on January 10 2017. Could anyone explain what facts such an opinion is based on? And if the death is not "accidental" (which is what the facts show), why is a non-accidental death of an employee not significant and not notable to be included in a Wikipedia article? G nikiforov (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Dlohcierekim said. I am willing to unblock you provided you agree not to edit OIST or related topics. In Wikipedia speak, as long as you accept a topic ban barring you from topics related to Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, broadly construed and including articles' talk pages, for the next six months. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , you have received the answer. It's sitting directly above the block message in this section. (p.s., I'm not a "moderator" here; no-one is.  "Moderators" on other fora try to control content and that's not a function of Wikipedia administrators. You were blocked not for speaking the truth, but for not following the conduct rules in place here.) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Warning
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)