User talk:Jeanpol

July 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Learning by teaching has been reverted. Your edit here to Learning by teaching was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lL8_4DHgnY|) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

May 2018
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Learning by teaching. 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. Alexf(talk) 09:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps helpfull: https://www.google.de/search?ei=pGmnWsy7CcOB6QTn-oLwBA&q=%22jean-pol+martin%22+%2B+%22Learning+by+teaching%22&oq=%22jean-pol+martin%22+%2B+%22Learning+by+teaching%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.3236.28261.0.30014.29.28.1.0.0.0.230.3878.0j15j8.23.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.23.3727...35i39k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.QRegg52xqO8 --Jeanpol (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Alexf(talk) 10:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in English Wikipedia
Hi Jeanpol. I work on conflict of interest editing in the English Wikipedia.

Thanks for disclosing that your relationship with the topics, Jean-Pol Martin and Learning by teaching.

I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Jeanpol. 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 COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. which you have done already.

The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
 * a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
 * b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to
 * (i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page (I have already done this, on the two affected pages); and
 * (ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the  tag to flag it for other editors to review.  In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once.  Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example.  This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where an organization has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very active user in the German Wikipedia and I think I know exactly how it works. In this specific case, the admins have to be expert in this topic. So they could immediatly understand, that the text is objective and funded. Of course I'm the scholar who developed "Learning by teaching". But as a scholar I'm able to describe something objective. And I know this topic better than other people. I know the Wikipedia-Rules regarding COI, but Einstein were not allowed to write about the theory of relativity. Is that productive? --Jeanpol (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia are not the same; the two communities each govern themselves. I have seen people from German WP come here and get indefinitely blocked because they assume that English Wikipedia is the same, and they do things here that are not OK here.
 * I strongly recommend that you read WP:EXPERT as well as User:Jytdog/How, as well as the English WP:COI guideline, which I tried to walk you through above. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog I'm absolutly willing to cooperate. But there is no sens to delete pages containing huge science-knowledge just because COI. I don't need Wikipedia to be famouse. But Wikipedia needs scholar in order to generate valuable knowledge. If there is no article in Wikipedia about "Learning by teaching", there are a lot of articles about this topic outside from Wikipedia. It makes no sense to Wikipedia if this encyclopedie deletes his own knowledge, I think.Jeanpol (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not recommending the article for deletion because you have a conflict of interest. I nominated it for deletion because in my view the product of your conflicted editing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The page needs to be completely written using independent sources. (I know that sounds probably sounds crazy to you) I pointed you to WP:EXPERT and User:Jytdog/How because they explain why Wikipedia works like it does. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog It sounds not crazy to me, because I know the Wikipedia-People and the dogmatic. They tend to destroy knowledge in order to keep their rules strong and clean. I don't depend from the English Wikipedia to spread "Learning by teaching". Thousends from scholars, teacher, students know this method and like it. If people are looking for informations, they will find no informations about "Learning by teaching" in the English Wikipedia. If Wikipedia stays rigid, it will be replace by other plattforms, the admins will be robots (AI). --Jeanpol (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It is clear that you are refusing to adapt to the strange environment that is Wikipedia. Working here is not like writing an academic paper or a personal blog, where your personal authority matters.  What is authoritative here are sources  and this is by design, and is what has made WP possible.  The project you want is Nupedia, which was split off from WP in the early days and was meant to be authored by experts, whose names went onto the articles they wrote.   If you want to remain productive in Wikipedia, you need to adapt to this environment, where your authority means nothing. If you don't adapt, you will be miserable and leave, or you will get thrown out of here.  Everyone makes their own way. We have lots of academics here who have adapted and who are some of our most productive and respected contributors - not because of their real world expertise, but because they understand how to write Wikipedia content and can do so brilliantly and efficiently.  It is unhappy when people act like an American in Paris and complain that no one speaks English (which is what you are doing), but that is not our problem. All we can do, is try to explain how this place works.  Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog In my opinion the aim of WP is to offer the users relevant and well-funded knowledge. Now we can see how other WP-Users are saying about this topic:Jeanpol (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The full mission, is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community of editors who can be pseudonymous if they choose. The only way that this mission is realizable - what has made that mission possible -- is that sources are authoritative, not editors.
 * There is also the issue of unmanaged conflict of interest. That is distinct from the first.  You have turned those two pages into promotion for yourself and your program, which is not good.  They are not encyclopedic, but rather extensions of your website.  WP cannot allow itself to be captured that way - not by you and your colleagues, and not by Pfizer or anybody else.  This is why we look for articles to be driven by independent reliable sources.   Jytdog (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog Now our both positions are clear. I'm waiting for other opinions. Here they are: Jeanpol (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the community may decide to keep the pages or delete them. This is why we have discussions. We will see the outcome.
 * However, the COI issue is not going to go away, if the pages are kept. Please do review the message above, with respect to that. You should not be editing either of those pages directly.  best regards. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog As you see, regarding your position I'm assuming good faith. I'm just trying to make you understand some evidences: I don't want to edit the articles at all. They are good sourced and content the most importants informations, so I dont need to extense them. Unfortunately I tried a couple of days ago to link my new article "Learning by teaching: conceptualization as a source of happiness", because this article is crucial for the actual stand of the Learning by teaching research. If the articles are kept, I don't have currently any reason to edit them. I think, they are enough people able and willing to complete the articles in the future. Jeanpol (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. Please be aware that if the articles are kept they are going to be completely rewritten. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great again. Who is doing this work? Who is able to do that?Jeanpol (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Right now nobody is fixing it. This unfortunately happens quite often, where there is a very bad article that is put up for deletion, people show up and !vote "keep", and then do nothing to fix the problems.  If the article is kept, and no else who knows how to create a decent Wikipedia article steps up to fix it, I probably will.  I won't do that while the discussion is ongoing. Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog "I probably will" You will fix the article? Really? It would be great! I think, you are really competent to do this. From my point of view, the English version of "Lernen durch Lehren" ("Learning by teaching") could be a very good adress for this topic. And this topic is currently worldwide in the education-scene on the focus of interest. "We still need to blow up the current article and re-do it": is this the target? Jeanpol (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Here the relevant discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Learning_by_teaching Jeanpol (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright
When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information.

It is not OK to link to material that violates someone else's copyright. Please read WP:COPYLINK. I fixed your violation of this policy that you made in this diff - see here where I redacted the links and posted valid links in my post.

I simply removed this violation.

To say this plainly, do not post links to pages in your blog, where you have copied copyrighted articles or posted pictures of copyrighted articles. You can violate copyright on your blog all day if you want; that is not our problem. But you cannot post links to those blog pages here. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You restored it. This is the kind of behavior that people get blocked for. Please stop. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Really - just cite the original article, instead of the copyright violation on your blog. This is not difficult. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to do what people here are saying. I restored because I thought I had vergotten to post this statement. Please assume good faith. And I don't want to violate anything.Jeanpol (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of working here, means paying attention, reading edit notes, etc.


 * I don't know if you bothered to read what I wrote above about conflict of interest, but it included Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing. (I added some bolding)  You are becoming a classic example of this. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Really - just cite the original article, instead of the copyright violation on your blog." Thank you for this advice. It's helpfull.Jeanpol (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You again posted a link to other people's material at your blog, in this diff.
 * We talk copyright very seriously. If you do this again I will seek a block. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't remark my violation of copyright. Please try to be friendly. Your are menacing continuously. I just try to understand what you want from me and to do this. As you see, I don't say anything unfriendly to you. It's very important for me to adress you just about the contents, not about your behavior.Jeanpol (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not about friendly or unfriendly. I gave you several warnings about this, increasing in intensity each time. I meant what I said each time. That is how things work here.  We try to educate people about policy, and when they ignore the education, we warn them that there are consequences for continually violating policy. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is definitely about friendly or unfriendly. This is about empathy and contentfocused or personfocused. In order to understand your behaviour I'm currently reading your description here: User:Jytdog. Your mission seems to be: "educate'". As "educator" I allways try to be human with my students and colleagues and never humiliate them. You are permanently humiliate me. "Education"? I definitely need help in order to deal better with the English WP. But I definitely don't need an educator, who has a lack of empathy. Jeanpol (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Somebody means you are "a moron". I absolutly don't think, that you are a moron and I'm willing to learn from you (not to be "educated" by you). I have learn a lot since a cup of days. And learning ist my main target. If you are willing working in WP not just to keep WP clean and control, but in order to help and construct, you can make "Learning by teaching" a WP-conform article. And of course I would like to help you the best I can. I think control is necessary, but construct is more important for WP and for the mankind. And: "assume good faith", so its better communicating with other peoples. Regarding you, I'm allways trying to "assume good faith". Jeanpol (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Spiegel piece has substantial discussion so is fine; the Zeit piece is also fine." This was helpfull, because as a scholar I didn't know, that newspapers and magazin are relevant sources.--Jeanpol (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm searching for official sources mentioning "Lernen durch Lehren", like curricula from the education administration. Here for instance: Bayerischer Lehrplan für die Realschule.Jeanpol (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I am glad you are interested in trying to learn. I will try to help you. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog A question: If I'm not allowed to insert relevant links like "SPIEGEL" or "ZEIT", because its forbidden for me to edit, who will insert this sources? In the to-delete-article a lot of request are insert like "Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources", or "Feel free to improve the article". Who has to feel free. Not me, I think. Jeanpol (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The way Wikipedia works, is that we write things to each other. If someone writes a message to you, they expect that you will read it, or that you will say that you didn't read it.
 * This is how we communicate.  We are limited, to this written medium.
 * I left you a long message above, at User_talk:Jeanpol, that explains very clearly how people with a conflict of interest can contribute. Did you read it?  If not, would you please read it?  Once you do, I will be happy to answer any additional questions you have. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I now printed alle the pages you recomand me and I'm reading them. A question I didn't find an answer: is it possible to translate pages I contributed in the German Wikipedia and upload in the English one? Of course not about my Work but about other topics, like "Exploratives Verhalten" ("explorative behavior")? So I can contribute to the English-WP.Jeanpol (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "With regard to my own external interests, I have disclosed my COI and have said that I will not edit content where I have a COI" I would like to do the same. Somebody can reduce the both articles "Learning by teaching" and "Jean-Pol Martin" using the sources "DER SPIEGEL" and "DIE ZEIT", and some more second or third sources I will find (for instance school-curricula, curricula from German education administration). So the topic is in Wikipedia, but very short and well-sourced.--Jeanpol (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm reading your User-Page with your very usefull descriptions of "second and tertiary sources". I didn't know this in the past and I guess the German WP don't have something like that. I think they are good rules for the purpose you describe. An other topic for me is the autoritativ and repressive behavior of many Admins. So Alex wrote: "has used two accounts User:Jeanpol and User:Jeanpol~enwiki" and he means I'm "socking". But my "User:Jean-Pol"-account was transfered in "Jeanpol~enwiki". I don't know why. To be suspected having a "sockpupet" is very hurting and not conform to "assume good faith". I allways published under my real name, I never used an sockpuppet in my live and I feel realy insulted! This way the climate in WP ist not motivating. It is very important to have a big motivation to work here. My motivation was and is: collective constructing knowledge. Since 2005. I wrote extensive textes in the German WP about this topic, I published an article about that and about WP-theory. --Jeanpol (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I'm very satisfied regarding the propositions on the Delete-Board. The topic will be more better presented if the article will be split, as an Admin suggested. The Revew is promoting a big improvement, I think. But who will do this work? --Jeanpol (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you for reading, and for starting to think about how we manage conflict of interest in Wikipedia, and how we build content from independent, secondary sources. That is great.
 * I understand that getting the pages fixed up, is a very urgent matter for you. For you.  Please understand that this arises for you, because of your conflict of interest.  The Wikipedia editing community moves slowly -- there is no deadline, and no urgency. Many of the problems caused by editors with a conflict of interest arise, because things are so urgent for them, and they push very hard for the changes they want, to be made immediately.   Can you see, how your conflict of interest, makes this urgent for you?
 * As for me, I plan to allow the deletion discussion to run its course. It should last about a week, and then it will be "closed", or summarized, by someone, who will make the official statement, as to whether the articles will be kept or deleted.  After that is done, I will decide what to do next.
 * I recommend that you be patient, and allow the discussion to be completed and closed.
 * To answer your question about using the articles in German Wikipedia - sure we can look at them (especially their sources). There may be some content that would be useful to translate.  We will see, when the time comes. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog Thank you very much. Getting the pages fixed up is not an urgent matter for me. I realise that COI is a crucial topic for WP and I understand why WP want to control this accurate. I haven't edit this articles for a long time and I'm patient. Thanks a lot again.Jeanpol (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The two accounts
I read what you wrote above, about not understanding how you came to have two accounts - this one, and User:Jeanpol~enwiki.

That is fine, confusing things happen.

We cannot delete accounts, but there is action you can take, to make it clear that you did not mean anything bad.

At User:Jeanpol~enwiki, please replace everything there, with the following:

"This account has also been used by me, User:Jeanpol. I do not understand how I came to have two accounts. In June 2018 I stopped using this account, and will link to this account from my other page."

And please never use that account again.

On your userpage, here (User:Jeanpol), please add:

"I somehow came to have a second account, User:Jeanpol~enwiki and have edited from it, just like this one. I do not understand how this happened. As of June 2018 I am not using the Jeanpol~enwiki account."

That will take care of this issue. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you like, I can do this for you. I would need your permission to do it. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog Of course. I agree. So I'm sure I don't make a mistake editing this sentences. Thank you very much! Jeanpol (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I took care of this, here and here. Please don't use the Jeanpol~enwiki account anymore, and everything will be fine.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot!--Jeanpol (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with experts
@Jytdog As I said, I'm learning a lot and reading all the texts you recomand me. I have a suggestion regarding dealing with experts: the only reason I could resist here to the "attacks" (so my feeling) was that I never answer to "personal hurtings" (connotation) and always concenter me on the contents (denotation) from a notification. For exemple if somebody say to me: "your are a moron, and a troll, don't link texts without copyright but cite just the titel of an article" I ignore "you are a moron" and try to do what the person advices. I try to keep friendly because I don't want to make the person angry! It wouldn't be productive. My suggestion regarding dealing with experts involved in COI: instaed of marking immediately the article to be delete, what a big "attack" for the "author" means, you could first send him just the texts: "Conflict of interest" and "Wikipedia: Expert editors". It is important to send just two textes, because more is too much and the expert will be discouraged. And to say him very pressing that he has to read this paper and consider the advices if he wants to save the article. I think, that way the expert will not be hurt but willing to cooperate. Best regards.--Jeanpol (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that is what i usually do - interact with the person first, and then with the content. :) It was a mistake to nominate these for deletion before talking with you. Sometimes I just get too disgusted (that sounds terrible I know).
 * But that is my thing to deal with.
 * I am sorry for upsetting you and not doing things the way I normally do. Interaction and teaching goes better when someone does not feel like you attacked them! Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog I like your way to communicate (now)! I'm reading all the/your texts in order to understand your position and compare with mine. This ist my User-Page in the German WP. I make everything open (that's my way to use WP): Benutzer:Jeanpol
 * Ich hatte schon gegukt! Jytdog (talk)
 * Are you speaking German? My position regarding WP is (was in the past) very radical: transparency, transparency, transparency! Here my WP-theory Jeanpol (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog And I'm very happy that User:Barkeep49 is willing to improve the "Learning by teaching"-article. So your "Delete-action" (what is legitim) turn in a big improving for the article, if it will be kept. I'm patient because my work currently is receptioned worldwide quite intensive. So the English-article is important, but not crucial for me. The worldwide (especially Asia) reception motivated people to look in the English-WP. That was the reason I thougt it will be necessary to improve the English-article and linked my last article "Learning by teaching: conceptualization as a source of happiness" (may 2018). Jeanpol (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I read German and can read/speak it some. Badly. :)  Yes the draft article is an improvement. We will get there. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We can now construct knowledge. It's the "mission" from WP! Jeanpol (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Secondary and tertiary sources
@Jytdog Since the "deletion nomination" I have reach my attention on second and tertiary sources, that I ignored before, because they were not relevant for my current activities. Now I'm very surprised to see how present the methode "Lernen durch Lehren" is in the new syllabus in Bavaria (I didn't make researches about other states, but google shows results in Hamburg, Hessen and so on). What can I do with this list? How can I use it for the Wikipedia-article? They are so much mentions in the curricula? "Lernen durch Lehren" + Lehrplan Jeanpol (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So the Wikipedia question is -- what sources talk about that? Using the curricula documents themselves would not be OK. Those are primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Numerous curricula mention "Lernen durch Lehren" being a valuable method and recomand the teachers to use it. If we write this in the article, we need secondary sources. And the sources I founded are secondary. Aren't they?Jeanpol (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think, this are secondary sources Jeanpol (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm very satisfied
@Jytdog I think you have made a very good job. Now "Learning by teaching" in WP is a outstanding reference I had neglected on the past. I didn't know the strong rules concerning COI and secondary sources. So I was forced to make researchs and found a lot of reliable secondary sources, including DER SPIEGEL and DIE ZEIT, what I had forgotten, because not relevant for scholars. At the beginning of the communication between us, I feel very "hunted", fearing to be "killed". I understand that Admins are willing to control WP and keep it clean. But perhaps this goal influence the communication-stile. Anyway: I thank you very much and the people who vote "keep".Jeanpol (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! As I said before, I am sorry we got off to a bad start. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Ende gut, alles gut". I have read quiet accurate your texts. You have a high conception of your work in the WP and I understand this very well. A crucial article by me calls "The education target: worldimprovement-competence" (2002). I try to make the world better, like you. But we have different ways. You are more looking for "violations". I'm looking for develop abilities and ressources. If you are interested in my last article (may 2018: "Learning by teaching: conceptualization as a source of happiness") about human needs, you just have to say. Best regardsJeanpol (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * found it; i will read it! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow!!! Wow!!! Wow!!!Jeanpol (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog I have seen your yesterday-modifications on the LdL-page (history). You have put very much energy and competence in this work!!!Jeanpol (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Learning by teaching first sentence, and more
Hello, Jeanpol. This is a response to your comment at User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/10. To the extent that this question is about content, it should be handled at Talk:Learning by teaching and not here but it appears you may be more familiar with de-wiki than en-wiki so I'll make a few comments here, and then for any specific content issues we should move to the article Talk page, okay?

You asked about some edits made by removing mentions about the Lernen durch Lehren program in Germany that you had recently added. I am strongly of the opinion that Psansoldo's removal of your edits was the correct move based on Wikipedia policy, primarily WP:Article titles and also our content guideline about the WP:LEADSENTENCE. My German doesn't appear to be as good as your English, however I get the "feeling" that the expression "Lernen durch Lehren" is more of a "name" or identifier in German (almost like a trademark or company name) than a simple description, whereas the English title, "Learning by teaching" feels more like a simple descriptor and not a name. I don't completely trust my feeling about the German title, because I lack the Sprachgefühl des Muttersprachlers for that, but I do with the English one.

Note that English has a slight advantage here, as if we were to translate the German article into English, it would either retain its German name, or it would be translated as "Learning By Teaching", where the capitals signal the proprietary (non-descriptive) name. What this all comes down to, is that the English article and the German article are not exactly about the same topic, although they overlap, but the English sense is broader and descriptive, and the German one is narrower and (to me) proprietary. Therefore, naming the technique created by J-P Martin in the first sentence seems inappropriate, and feels like WP:PROMOtion or advocacy to me.

Bottom line: the English article is not about the proprietary technique covered in the German article, it is considerably broader, and should not start out talking about that technique in the first sentence.

I note that the French, Spanish, and Russian articles all cover the same topic as the German one, that is, the proprietary technique. I note also that you have been editing at all of them (although less in Russian, as far as I can tell). This is one major difference with en-wiki, as it is considered problematic, although not quite prohibited, to edit articles about yourself, your employer, your family, or anyone you have a personal or professional relationship with. This is a separate issue, and I'll leave you a separate message with standard text about that issue below this one. You won't be happy to hear this next part, but in my opinion, you should not be editing the English article at all (or Jean-Pol Martin) due to a conflict of interest, although it's perfectly fine to engage on the article Talk page. Please feel free to reply below if you have any questions about this. If you have questions about editing English Wikipedia, you may ask at the WP:Tea house or the Help desk. MfG, Mathglot (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing with a conflict of interest
Well, I was going to send you the standardized message about conflict of interest here, but it looks like you already received one before. It's been a few years since you did, so this would be a good time to re-read that comment again, and follow the links in the message. In my opinion, you should stop editing the Learning by teaching article as you are too close to the topic to be objective about it, and WP:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia&apos;s Five Pillars and most important policies. Instead of editing the article directly, it would be wise to make an WP:Edit request at the Talk page (Talk:Learning by teaching) describing the change you wish to make, and let somebody else make the edit to the article, if they agree with your proposed change. This is not a hard and fast rule, it is advice. Please feel free to reply below or ask any editor for more information about this, or you can ask at the Help desk.

Note: this message applies solely to the COI principles at English Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia has their own set of policies and guidelines; if you wish to read about COI at other Wikiipedias, please see de:Wikipedia:Interessenkonflikt, fr:WP:Conflit d'intérêts, es:WP:Conflicto de interés, and ru:ВП:Конфликт интересов. If you wish to discuss them, however, this page is not the place for that; please refer to your Talk page or Help pages at the individual Wikipedias in question. Since you edit in multiple Wikipedias, this little (incomplete) template of mine might be of interest to you:

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, dear Mathglot for the very usefull advices. I'm satisfied about the situation and let the article as it is. I'll further don't edith this article.Jeanpol (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)