User talk:Petertrick

Hello Petertrick. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

At least some of this edit is not neutral and includes WP:Original research. Moondyne (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Second warning
Please refer to WP:COI: "Accounts that appear, based on their editing history, to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization), in apparent violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.".

As you appear to be unable to edit the article neutrally I suggest you back away and leave it for others to improve. You may wish to add new material through the talk page as suggestions if you wish. Moondyne (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Beyond Capricorn edit
This is a message to Moondyne. Please note firstly that I am new to the process of editing Wiki articles (unlike yourself, with years of experience!) and some of the procedures are still a bit of a mystery to me. I was not aware of this talk page until now.

Having said that, I only became aware of the Wiki entry re my book, Beyond Capricorn, quite by chance about a year ago. I have no idea how long the article had been there - and of course neither do I know who wrote it. It summarises at least part of the book reasonably, except that when I read it I was left in no doubt that it was written by someone with a bias who is opposed to my thesis and conclusions. This to me was obvious from the quite numerous mis-statements and subtle or not-so-subtle distortions appearing in places.

I would emphasise that my sole objective in doing a little editing here and there has been to correct the above inaccuracies. Am I "unable to edit the article neutrally" as you put it? Well, if you regard restoring a factual balance as biased, then perhaps so. However, as the author I am the one who surely should know what exactly I wrote in the book, and ALL of my edit changes without exception can be verified thru reference to the text of the book. May I suggest, Moondyne, that you do just that, instead of resorting to the quite offensive comment that I should "back off and leave it for others to improve".

That's all I have to say. I look forward to your response.

Peter Trickett


 * I never mentioned innacuracies—my concern was about the language and tone you inserted which downplayed the criticisms of the book. Further, "Trickett's response to the latter criticism is that it is Richardson himself who has failed to realise that this discrepancy was fully explained..." (for example) sounds like original research. You made some changes in March 2011 which were found wanting and a warning was left on your talk page.  An orange bar letting you know you had a new message would have appeared when you next logged on—its hard to miss.  Some of your changes were adjusted (not everything). Your more recent changes were similar and so I responded accordingly.  These concerns are precisely why you should not edit articles about yourself or your own publications.  I understand that WP procedures can be daunting but trust me that it is not trying to attack you but only to report the facts truthfully.  Moondyne (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be factual!
To Moondyne Are you seriously suggesting that an author should not have the right to correct major factual errors in an (anonymous) Wiki summary of his book? It is clear to me from your latest remarks that you have either not read or not understood anything that I previously wrote. I find the tenor of your comments arrogant and offensive. Unlike you, I am not sheltering under the anonymity of a pseudonym. I can only wonder who appointed you to this editing role, and on what qualifications. - Peter Trickett