User talk:Keithdevlin

Welcome!

 * }

December 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Keith Devlin has been reverted. Your edit here to Keith Devlin 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 (http://profkeithdevlin.wordpress.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. 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) 21:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth in Keith Devlin
I have reverted your deletion of the properly-sourced DoB for the Keith Devlin article. You offered no reason for deleting this data, nor any correction, nor alternative sourcing. Indeed, I can find no edit summaries in any of your edits. Please can you ensure that you explain each of your edits in future, please. Have you read WP:COI yet? Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Keith Devlin, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Entry for Keith Devlin
Following an age discrimination case involving me in the US (still unresolved), my lawyer advised me to remove mentions of my age in all easily accessed publish places, of which Wikipedia is one of the most public. (The issue, as I understand it, is not one of accessibility of information, rather a distinction between push information and pull information.) Your system apparently does not let me edit my own entry, indeed, it seems I am about to be blocked for attempting to do so. You may contact me via my publicly available Stanford email address to verify that this is indeed me. Thank you in advance for your time. I am not familiar with how Wikipedia works, and assumed that creating an account and signing in would give me editing ability, but I guess there is more to it than that. Keithdevlin (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keith - For I assume this is you. Thank you for the explanation which I have moved above, since it is more pertinent here. However, something is not quite right... Even more easily accessible than Wikipedia is Google. The first source for your birthdate came via Google from your Stanford University CV. What steps have you taken to redact your Stanford University CV to fall in line with your lawyer? Then there is the University of Hull honorary degree where they report your DoB, etc. All prominent public sources perfectly acceptable to Wikipedia. Your deletion of these valid sources without any explanatory editsummary was seen as vandalism, hence my warnings. (You did not help yourself by introducing the previously-alerted Wordpress links - but you weren't to know this at the time). The relevant Wikipedia policy is Verifiability - whereby only information that can be verified by prior publication in a public source can be included. WP:BLP is also relevant - in particular the section: WP:BLPEDIT. However I cannot see the point of your lawyer's request wrt Wikipedia - given the continued existence of Stanford's and Hull's webpages. As an Admin, I think the best course of action is for you to follow the advice in one of the above links and call - this will involve a second Admin. I think I have become entangled with the minutiae of this article, and remove myself from further actions. With your permission, I'll do this for you - see below - and you should get someone with more experience of the legal side. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to Adminhelp: I think I have become closely involved with the reversion of Keith's edits, and would welcome a second opinion on Keith's explicit point above. The article is Keith Devlin and I believe I have been discussing with Keith Devlin above, on whose behalf I have asked for assistance. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Keith Devlin. Ian, thanks for getting back to me. I have altered the CV on my Stanford webpage and on the mirror site at profkeithdevlin.com, on the advice of my lawyer. I am unable to amend a press release from the University of Hull, but as I understand it the issue is whether a third party takes initiative to determine someone's age (and then uses that in a manner that is illegal in the USA) as opposed to that information being readily available. Wikipedia is clearly in a different category than the Press Office of the University of Hull. In addition, there are lots of errors and omissions on the entry for me, but it seems I cannot make changes to make the entry more accurate, though I was able to correct the list of institutions where I have been employed.


 * Keith, What is inaccurate in the article? There is clearly no problem in correcting errors in the Wikipedia article, where we can confirm the correct detail. I'm sure that these corrections can go forward while your other issue is being dealt with. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin, but I'm willing to help out in this situation to the extent possible.  Senator2029  ║  talk  01:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ian, Thanks again. This has already taken up more of my time than I expected. I suspect that from my perspective it is enough that I have made a good faith effort to do as advised. Wikipedia is clearly far more complex than I realized (probably with good reason) - my one previous attempt to correct some inaccuracies in a mathematical entry were also quickly over-ridden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithdevlin (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks Keith - I would try to engage with Senator2029 in the absence of an Admin response. I apologise for the complexity of WP - but it has clearly evolved over many years from the simple self-edit website of yore.. My eldest son has Erdos number = 5, and I have read most of your New Scientist articles since the 1970s. So I am very familiar with your situation and hence my deferral. BRgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ian, I tried hitting the "Talk" button on Senator2029 but that just took me to a general information page; it did not open up a talk channel. In terms of the Wikipedia guidelines, the issue seems to be that the entry as it stands has done me harm and is likely to continue to do so. A great deal of my income comes from paid speaking and consulting engagements. In this regard, by virtue of the role Wikipedia has created for itself in society (particularly among the individuals and organizations that typically hire my services), the Wikipedia entry for me is a major platform that people and organizations consult prior to engaging my services. That the entry itself gives my birth date is in itself not problematic. Rather the issue is the prominent placement of that information at the start of the entry and in the caption to the photograph. Such placement makes that information part of my public professional profile, and that can result in harm to me as a public figure whose living depends in significant part on my public identity. Clearly, anyone can readily obtain birth details for me from public sources, and indeed in giving presentations (some of which are available in radio audio archives and on Youtube) I often refer to the fact that I decided to become a scientist because of the launch of Sputnik in 1958 the year I went to high school. But that is very different from having the information an integral part of what many of my potential clients view (rightly or wrongly) as a part of my professional profile. That some base hiring decisions on age information, illegal in the US, should be a separate issue, but the (false) perception that I include such information in a very public way as part of my professional persona seems to vest the Wikipedia entry with a significant role here. I am surely not the only public figure for whom this issue has arisen. Keithdevlin (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are going to struggle with any removal. As Ian says the basis for any WP data is the existence of verifiable reliable sources. The fact that more than one page at Stanford shows you completing your degree in 1968, does not make if difficult to work out your age, for any who wish to try. Also you may wish to note that all Stanford pages have been archived and freely available at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php - there's no way you can redact those pages. As far as I know, there is no way for users to get data removed about themselves, when it is perfectly correct (poor quality data is different). The case of date of birth is also covered at WP:DOB - but that would only allow you to remove the month and day - not what you are looking for. I think you need to try remove all the outside sources first, then consider removing the data here as non-verifiable - but there are plenty of editors here who know how to use the web archive and how to correctly reference an old page so it may come back as quick as it goes. There are literally millions of WP editors out there, all looking to "improve" Wikipedia, and a Person Infobox with no date of birth is going to set the hunt going. It's feasible you could ask for a complete deletion of the article - it says so at WP:BLPDELETE - I'm not sure what the outcome would be of such a request. I'll leave up the adminhelp, there may be another one about with some other ideas.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ron, Okay, thanks. I guess my only course of action is to consider taking action against anyone in the US who makes illegal use of that information. It has happened only once so far, or at least only once I became aware of. It never occurred to me before that there could be a problem. My lawyer thought (as I think most people do) that I wrote that Wikipedia entry myself and that it was part of my professional advertising, so I should delete that data. I was surprised to find it was not possible. (I'm hardly a famous person like a major politician, and doubt I am in any other encyclopedia. I'm just an ordinary citizen. I was actually surprised to discover there was an entry for me at all. I suspect that only people who want to hire me actually consult that entry. No one else would have any interest. Is it Wikipedia's intention to one day list every person who ever lives? Maybe it is.) Keithdevlin (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr Devlin, you may consider approaching the editors at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to discuss deleting, or drastically altering, Keith Devlin. I have not read the article nor do I know who you are (apologies), so my suggestion may be a non-starter (your notability may be such that deletion is not an option).  You should be aware that, in most instances, off-wiki concerns do not impact the encyclopedia.  However, I do know that this project is sensitive to the wishes of individuals that have concerns regarding "their" articles.  Like Ron, I will leave the admin help template in place so that other opinions may be forthcoming.  Regards  Tide  rolls  21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tried removing the date of birth. It remains to be seen whether it stays removed. Unfortunately, in a web site where anyone can edit, it is not easy to stop the information from being restored by someone or other. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can do no more now. I've killed the adminhelp. Only time will tell if someone comes along and re-adds the data.  Ron h jones (Talk) 12:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all who have helped. Much appreciated. Keithdevlin (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The changes made by JamesBWatson seem to have survived for 24 hours. Again, many thanks to all who have helped. Even if the problem resurfaces, I appreciate all the help. I think the accuracy and dispute status alerts can be removed now. (I don't know how to do that, or even if I can.) Over the coming months, I'll add missing information so the entry is more complete -- at least I'll try. Keithdevlin (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you bring any changes to the article's talk page. Subject's of articles are generally discouraged from editing their articles (you may find WP:COI informative).  I've watchlisted that page (more than likely others that have posted here have as well) in the event I am able to offer assistance. Regards  Tide  rolls  09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I'll suggest edits here. I guess the most useful thing is to make the list of my published books accurate. They are all listed at http://www.stanford.edu/~kdevlin/bookslist.pdf, but without ISBNs. The list on amazon also seems correct and gives the ISBNs: http://www.amazon.com/Keith-Devlin/e/B000APRPC6/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 Keithdevlin (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)