User talk:Jeff at Manifold Software

May 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid, you must disclose who is paying you to edit. Please also note that you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87". If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. Thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't add promotional material, I write specific descriptions. If you think there is a better way to discuss the specific technical points that I make, I would be grateful for any specific improvements you would suggest. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for cancelling useful information that you don't like, under the guise of editing out "promotional" material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at Manifold Software (talk • contribs)


 * I would specifically suggest that you re-read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and reconsider edit warring about your company's products. - MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't work for a company. I am not a paid editor and I do not have a conflict of interest. What is your conflict of interest that you do discriminatory edits against one package but do not apply the same standards to others? Once again, I invite you to join in a consensus effort: citing specific technical differences between packages is useful and informational. If you have specific technical knowledge that leads you to believe that the information I wrote is inaccurate or could otherwise be improved, I invite you to contribute those insights. Jeff at Manifold Software (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are not an employee of Manifold Software? 331dot (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm a volunteer, like in open source. Jeff at Manifold Software (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if you are not a paid employee and are helping them out of the goodness of your heart, you clearly have a conflict of interest. Whether you are associated with them or not, your edits have indeed contained promotional language. Other promotional language in that article or other articles does not mean that you can add it too, as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can; we can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You're stretching "conflict of interest" to include anybody who has sufficient knowledge of a topic to contribute accurate, exact, objective information to Wikipedia. You're also falsely characterizing technically accurate descriptions as "promotional language." Wikipedia is not a place where people have to wear the language equivalent of a burqa to satisfy extremist views. You appear to be trying to set a new standard where it is OK for articles in Wikipedia to be biased and not applying the same rules to all content of the article. At the same time, you haven't joined in a productive, consensus process to state exactly what you object to. GIS is a subset of software and expertise in specific GIS packages, especially niche packages, is a subset of that. It is difficult to find anyone who has strong technical knowledge of a niche package who also cares enough about that package to spend time on Wikipedia contributing accurate information, who does not in some way have a "confict of interest" because they a) like that package or b) have friends in the effort that creates it. How many people have you criticized for having a conflict of interest who have friends in open source packages or who have contributed to open source packages? In your history I see no such instances. When you write "Other promotional language in that article or other articles does not mean that you can add it too" you are dodging your obligation to apply the same rules to all. What is it that you object to? Is it the word "professional?" If so, in seconds you could eliminate the use of that word in all other descriptions. Likewise for the word "powerful". Why haven't you done that? I have no problem with Wikipedia rules applied even handedly and fairly throughout an article and a consensus process. I invite you to apply whatever rules you think apply evenly and fairly throughout that article, and to join the consensus process. As a volunteer, I think it would be more productive for you to state specifically what you object to, and then apply that objection throughout the article. Jeff at Manifold Software (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merely liking a topic is not a conflict of interest. But your username and edits themselves clearly indicate a deeper association than merely liking something.  If you say you aren't paid, I believe you. If you review WP:COI, you will learn that conflict of interest is not just about actual conflicts, but the perception of conflicts.  Someone involved in open source projects could easily be perceived as having an interest in telling people about it.
 * Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Everyone has biases.  Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia.  Those sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors.
 * I address the situations that are in front of me. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they wish to do, when they can do it, things can get by us.  We are not a 24/7 paid police force available to immediately respond to and address all policy issues.  If you have identified other problematic language, please point it out, or remove it yourself. This does mean that not every policy issue is immediately addressed- we rely on everyone pitching in to help out. It also does not mean, as I said, that you can do what other people have gotten away with.  Otherwise, nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who is removing edits that are directly analogous to many existing descriptions in the topic, so it is up to you to state what you find objectionable. You haven't done that. It seems to me that in terms of edit history, it is your edits that clearly indicate an unbalanced (in the neutral meaning of that word, in the sense of being not objective) approach to the content of this article. What specific words do you object to? Jeff at Manifold Software (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you have me confused with MrOllie; I don't recall removing your edits. If I did, please provide diffs. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I did have you confused with MrOllie. My apologies. In reviewing the article I see MrOllie has edited it extensively to remove words he or she finds "promotional," such as words like "powerful" and "professional." I don't have a problem with not using words like that so long as others do not. However, as a newcomer to Wikipedia, my intent was to write my contribution using the prevailing style. It stands to reason that entries which were written using those words and which have apparently been on the page for years follow consensus standards, true? So, it seemed unbalanced for MrOllie not to object to those He seems to have a problem with truth those, as he wrote this lie in stating why he did a reversion: "Rv paid editor adding clear promotional language " - I'm not a paid editor. So, where do we go in Wikipedia to correct such libel?Jeff at Manifold Software (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry I assumed that an editor who writes exclusively about Manifold software, including adding obviously promotional language, and who was operating an account called 'Manifold Software' (now renamed to 'Jeff at Manifold Software'), had a conflict of interest with Manifold software. I wonder where I got that idea from? You mention above that you aren't an employee. Do you have any other financial interest in the company or its products? Do you own some part of the company? If not, why do you volunteer? I've never heard of anyone volunteering for a for-profit company producing proprietary software before, that must be an interesting story. - MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , You're dodging the lie you wrote.  You wrote "Rv paid editor adding clear promotional language " which is a lie.   I'm not a paid editor and you referring to me as such is libel.   You also have no idea if Manifold is either a for-profit company or if it produces only proprietary software, but you appear to assume first and then search for truth second. That you have such limited life experience and computer experience you don't know of instances where people volunteer for for-profit enterprises, for non-profit enterprises, or for hybrids does not entitle you to inject falsehoods into Wikipedia, or to vandalize articles based on your biases.  Like many other people, I am happy to volunteer to make contributions to the Manifold community.  I do not otherwise have any connection with the company.  Now it is your turn MrOllie to disclose your conflicts of interest: have you contributed to any open source project involved in GIS or other spatial technology?  Do you have any connection to any company that uses such software?  Do you have an interest in advancing such software where you work, for example, to get a larger budget or greater respect for you or your team?  From the way you edit and your comments it is clear you have a bias, or even a conflict of interest editing what you think is "for profit" or "proprietary" software, so let's get to the bottom of this so Wikipedia readers can judge for themselves how your bias may have affected your edits.  331dot makes a good point, in that we all have our biases, wehther we know them or not, so it is fair to ask such biases be disclosed.  That goes for you as much as everyone else.Jeff at Manifold Software (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will be frank with you; if you are editing under the premise "I don't have a problem with not using words like that so long as others do not" you are going to have a difficult time here. We can't control what the other 7 billion plus humans on this planet do on Wikipedia, at least not without help. Anyone can edit any article at any time, and without knowing a single rule or style guideline. There are 6 million plus articles and only tens of thousands of regular editors to monitor them. That something has existed for awhile does not necessarily mean it has passed community scrutiny. It may have, but not necessarily. Until we all get paid to spend time here, that's just the way it is. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your frankness. I understand the difficulty of "anyone can edit any article at any time". It is also difficult for volunteers to unravel all the mysteries of Wikipedia rules and culture, to understand what rules are written, and to understand and in good faith apply those rules are applied in practice.  In my brief experience of Wikipedia editing I can see how it appears the rules get applied in practice via a chaotic and far from consensual adversary process.  For example, read MrOllie's talk page and it seems to consist primarily of other people complaining about his censorship.  So I don't think it unreasonable to try to learn about how the rules are applied in reality by patterning contributions to match text and language that has stood the test of time in a given article.  By "not having a problem using words..."  I meant to indicate I agreed with a consensus approach to the application of Wikipedia rules.Jeff at Manifold Software (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)