User talk:MAloeVeritasM

Editing with a conflict of interest
Hello, MAloeVeritasM. 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, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your Contributions
I was reading the Lee Smolin article and read some text that struck me as strongly POV and unencyclopedic in tone. I tried to find the author and found your list of contributions which raised some more general concerns with your pattern of editing that I wanted to raise here (and document here for others to see).

You edited three articles (plus two edits to the article on fuzzball (string theory):


 * Antony Garrett Lisi
 * Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski
 * Lee Smolin

In all three cases, you removed or qualified statements or added material to cast down on the validity or importance of the scientists' work. You refer to the lack of published support for positions but you cite no sources yourself. I'm not a physicist so I don't have a strong position on which to evaluate the technical claims of validity/invalidity. That said, in all three cases, the edits you've made make me worried about axe-grinding and raise concerns of neutrality.

More problematically, I also found that you blanked/removed this text from your talk page. That message suggests to me that this is some bigger/longer argument that is spilling into Wikipedia here. I also noted that you got into a complicated argument on Talk:Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski where you tried to argue that argue for helping Gonzalez Pasterski by deleting her page while essentially dismissing all the coverage of her work as hype. You also make edits to that talk page which have been expunged.

Given all this, I'm going to look through those three articles and revert edits that aren't sourced or that strike me as POV. Please discuss these edits on the relevant talk pages, provide citations to reliable sources to backup your claims (especially critical claims about living people!) before restoring the text or similar. — m a k o ๛  02:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've reverted many of your edits to the Lee Smolin article but it looks like others have mostly taken care of the other two so I haven't edited them. I'm happy to chat more or work toward helping you improve these articles in ways that conform to Wikipedia's standards if you're interested. — m a k o ๛  21:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)