User talk:LloydGraham

Really interested in your writings on magic squares, grigris etc.

Am preparing something on this for mathematical meeting.

Can you email me please? I;d like to pick your brain?

JOHN BIBBY jb43@york.ac.uk ¬¬¬¬

===Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Tingari
Why the banner asking for more precise references?

helpme

I'm new here, so I need help with this. My newly-created article on Tingari has full in-line Harvard system references with page numbers (unless the whole source is relevant), and the sources are Wiki-linked to the Reference section just as described in WP's style guide called Wikipedia:Citing Sources. Neverthelss a bot has placed the following banner:

"This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations."

I used the Harvard system because I cite different pages from the same books at different places, so it's more economical than using footnotes. How can I quash the banner?

Assistance appreciated.

LloydGraham (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, admittedly it's a bit unusual to use cite tags over ref tags, as you have (if you like, I could convert the page to use ref tags)... but as you say, it's tricky citing multiple pages from the same text, in such situations. For the time being, it seems the claim in the banner is a bit off, so I've gone ahead and removed it. In any case, thank you so much for your hard work; you seem like an outstanding newcomer, and I hope you enjoy your time here. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it too much -- our motto for newcomers has always been simple: be bold. There's a lot of random policies, guidelines, style norms, piles and piles of stuff that's all too easy to get buried in. So, generally, you just need to act in good faith and get the ball rolling, and other people will magically come out of the woods and start guiding things along. Judging from the article, you seem tech-savvy and probably have some experience with wikis, so I imagine you'll do fine. If you find that you have trouble looking for areas to contribute in (I did!), the community portal can be pretty handy, too. – Luna Santin  (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, technically there's Category:Categories, but there are a lot of categories, more than can easily or quickly be browsed top-down, unfortunately. I've usually found it more helpful to find a related article or two (even just slightly related) and start from the categories those other articles are in. For example, the opening line in Tingari links to Australian Aboriginal mythology, which is in Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology, which is hopefully a good starting point, at least. I think that's something like what you're looking for, at least? – Luna Santin  (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See Bioadhesion Talk page
...for a merger proposal. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, LloydGraham. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Tron: Legacy, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. See WP:SELFCITE. – The Grid  ( talk )  18:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern. I will see if I can use the Request Edit template to request the addition rather than making it myself; I did not know that it existed. LloydGraham (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:LloydGraham


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:LloydGraham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, LloydGraham. 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 conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see );
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see );
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Tron: Legacy. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I am an academic researcher with a PhD from the University of Cambridge. My limited contributions to Wikipedia are all scholarly in nature and sober in tone. I do not know you and have no idea why you have suddenly engaged in so much hostility against me, but I am happy for any dispute of edits that I have made to be resolved by independent third parties. I trust that you will abide by the outcome of WP's established processes for dispute resolution, but fear that your single-handed overturning of the outcome of the WP:Request For Edit process on the Talk:Tron: Legacy page indicates that you will not. LloydGraham (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your credentials don't mean Wikipedia guidelines don't apply to you. You don't need to know me for me to be "allowed" to removed self-promotional edits. You have spent years adding yourself to articles not to mention your undeclared COI in authoring Danny Malboeuf with DannyMalboeuf. WP:COI states that it is mandatory for you to disclose any conflict of interest. The fact that you and DannyMalboeuf together wrote his biography at User:LloydGraham/Sandbox as well as duplicating it on User:DannyMalboeuf before moving it to article space heavily indicates you have a COI on the subject and yet you have never disclosed this. Do you have any other COI on any other subjects you have edited? ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Academics are allowed to cite their contributions to a topic if they are significant; doing so does not automatically represent self-promotion or COI, as you seem to believe.
 * I have never met Danny Malboeuf but I do admire his art and writing. He did not collaborate with me in authoring his WP entry or ask me to do it; that was entirely my doing. I did, however, obtain his permission before creating the page. Others have since edited it and nobody has objected to any aspect of it until now. As always, I am happy for any dispute to be resolved by independent third parties. LloydGraham (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:COI would beg to differ with your interpretation of what academics are allowed to do.
 * If Malboeuf didn't collaborate with you, then who is DannyMalboeuf and why were you working with them? How did you manage to get permission from someone you don't know? The fact that you did converse with the subject before authoring an article about them with another editor using that subject's name means you should have disclosed this. Your edits have been objected to in the past and you were warned about them on the Tron Legacy article. The fact that the other COI edits slid under the radar doesn't mean they don't violate guidelines. It just means you didn't get caught until today. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I said that I have never met Danny Malboeuf, and that is correct. I do, however, correspond with him electronically and yes, I now regard him as a friend. When I created the WP entry for Malboeuf back in 2008 the WP environment was very different to how it is now, and all good-faith contributions were welcomed, although they did not necessarily stand the test of time. The fact that nobody objected to the page and the fact that others have used and edited it page over the last 16 years makes me believe that it is useful. As the content must comply with WP:BLP the content is necessarily positive, so please do not mistake this for favouritism or non-neutral POV. I see that you have now flagged the page for review in line with current policies and I am happy for this to occur. LloydGraham (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are playing games. First you didn't know him and now you admit that you correspond and that he is a friend. All of which should have been disclosed a long time ago per WP:COI. You clearly don't understand how your own conflicts of interest impact the project so I would recommend you take some time and read WP:COI in its entirety and limit yourself to talk pages where you have a conflict of interest. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything that I have written to you is accurate, but you continually misread and misrepresent it. The point that I was trying to make is that I did not create the page for Malboeuf because he was my friend (which would have been highly inappropriate) but because I admired and was very familiar with his work.
 * The most relevant part of WP:COI for the "self-promotion" that you accuse me of reads: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work." I honestly believe that I have always complied with this policy. Where a contribution of mine has been disputed, I have used the established WP mechanisms to arrive at an outcome arbitrated by independent third parties. I will do so again in respect the suite of reversions that you have applied to my contributions, even though this will take time and effort on my part that I can ill afford. LloydGraham (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you keep reading the section you quoted you will reach the following: "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming."
 * Actually the most relevant part is at WP:COIEDIT and it says the following:
 * you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
 * you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
 * you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;
 * The fact that you glossed right over that shows illustrates the problem here. You seem to think the guidelines don't actually apply to you because your work is so important.
 * In the second paragraph of WP:COI it says "Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing." I quoted it to you before and it still applies. When other editors take issue with your edits (and I am not the first) then you need to step back and recognize that you may have lost your perspective due to your own conflict of interest. But instead you keep arguing that you should be allowed to wantonly self-promote because it isn't self-promotion if you do it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I’ve made the points below in other WP forums, where they received the usual contemptuous misrepresentation and smack-down from ThaddeusSholto, but they bear repeating here for the sake of continuity (and my sanity).


 * 1. I don’t think that my work is special or that WP policy doesn’t apply to me; on the contrary, I keep pointing out that I have actually followed the instructions provided in WP:SELFCITE. I also think that it is not in the best interest of WP for editors to routinely be deleting material from specialised articles unless they actually have some knowledge of the topics in question. Your deletions of academic content span articles on quantum physics, mathematical superpermutation, protein phylogeny, biological adhesives, insect endocrinology, Australian aboriginal culture, Irish Neolithic archaeology, mythological tripedalism... the list is endless.


 * 2. You continue to insist that academic self-citation automatically violates WP:SELFCITE policy (e.g. ) but – as I have repeatedly pointed out – the policy actually says nothing of the sort. It certainly cannot be used to judge, punish and insult good-faith academic contributors in the way that you have been doing to me and other scholars.


 * 3. You have carefully cherry-picked from my entire edit history, spanning 16 years, some 8 instances where I felt it appropriate to cite publications on which I was an author (sometimes just as one of several co-authors), and have mispresented this as deliberate self-promotion. What you have carefully ignored is the fact that, over the same time-span, most of the citations/links that I have added are to the works of others – some 45 different references to relevant sources with which I have absolutely no connection (diffs are posted in my Sandbox to reduce clutter). All of these were completely new additions to the WP entries; moreover, this total excludes a further 39 citations/links that I added to Danny Malboeuf, which can still be seen at that page. That’s a total of 84 citations wholly unrelated to me versus 8 for which I had some level of authorial involvement. Given that I only contribute to topics about which I have extensive knowledge and a track-record of research publications, I do not see that as coming remotely close to WP:CITESPAM.


 * 4. Your conspiracy theory about inappropriate collusion on Danny Malboeuf is demonstrably unfounded. I created the all of the article’s initial content myself in my Sandbox and – mindful of WP:BLP and believing that the subject (who was not a WP User) would not be able to see the mock-up if it remained in my private User space – I created the account User:DannyMalboeuf and pasted the article’s text there for Malboeuf’s approval after handing over to him the login details; that’s why the Edit Summary for the creation of Danny Malboeuf says “Created with consent of subject.” User:DannyMalboeuf never edited Danny Malboeuf; indeed, that account was never used by anybody for anything other than the initial approval of the content for Danny Malboeuf in 2008. It remained totally forgotten and unused until its rediscovery and deletion in Jan 2024. The truth of this explanation is evident from the Page Histories and User Contribution Logs.


 * 5. To repeatedly brand me as a self-promoter, self-advertiser, spammer and corrupt editor in in your Edit Summaries and in my attempts at constructive discussion in various WP forums violates Wikipedia fundamentals such as WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CIVIL, WP:FOC and WP:NPA. Unlike you, I am not hiding behind the pseudonym of a fictional character and your accusations have the potential to cause me real-world reputational harm. WP:FOC says that editors should “comment on content, not the contributor,” but you repeatedly do the opposite. I note that your toxic behaviour toward other Users has recently been called out by an Administrator who said: “They’ve tried to follow our process in good faith [...] and you’ve demonstrated that no matter what they do Wikipedia is an unkind and uncaring place” . I don’t expect WP to be either kind or caring, but I do expect it to be fair; I also expect editors to observe basics such as WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CIVIL, WP:FOC and WP:NPA, and to engage constructively in areas of disagreement. It speaks volumes that your very first action was to nominate my entire User account for Speedy Deletion, a request that was immediately rejected (without me even needing to appeal) by the Administrators.