User talk:Pi3146

Some tips about source assessment and usage
Hello Pi3146, the question was getting a bit off-topic for a purely spam-related forum, so I hope you don't mind a few quick tips here:
 * The usage of promotional and PR sites is generally discouraged. Of course such activities from site owners are usually not illegal. But they tend to reduce the reliability of the site in question. Use such sites with a promotional focus only in exceptional cases and with caution.
 * Wikipedia is not a platform to report about new theories or upcoming scientific trends, unless these theories have already been reviewed and discussed by other academic peers and expert publications. Thus a lot of the cutting-edge new content on the author's site may probably not be useable as source, as it may not reflect established encyclopedic knowledge - but that's a case by case decision depending on the specific research and its current status.
 * Blogs, even expert blogs, usually don't have editorial oversight or fact-checking processes. So blogs in general should not be used in almost all cases. Expert blogs may be used to verify the expert's own attributed opinion, but that's pretty much the only major exception.
 * Aside from these general considerations, books and other publications from this author and his site were systematically cite spammed in dozens of indiscriminate Wikipedia articles - often without proper context and encyclopedic relevance, just to have the citation for its own sake. Such promotional mass-adding of indiscriminate citations without real encyclopedic value is never OK, no matter which source or publication is spammed.

I hope these quick and simplified tips are helpful. More information to identify valid reliable sources can be found in WP:RS. You can also ask at WP:Teahouse (a forum for new editors), if you have any specific questions about Wikipedia-editing. GermanJoe (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC) @GermanJoe thank you so much, your insights will be a great help for someone just getting started> I am hoping to go through multiple revisions to evolve a final version that conforms to your policy.

Terms of use and COI
You need to declare any connection to Mike Gruntman and the astronauticsnow website. See our policy WP:COI and also the terms of use. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy I am a solar physicist, into instrumentation research, and closely follow Mike's work. We (my space physics fraternity) often cite his work and research, and have taken his scientific and technical advice for our own research purposes on multiple occasions. Furthermore, this article is totally written by my own discretion, in good faith, to preserve and bring out to the larger audience (outside of immediate scientific fraternity), Mike's contribution in the areas of astronautics, space-physics (esp ENA) research and education. I however, do not wish to be uniquely identified (in public) for privacy reasons, if ok ! I have no connection to Astronauticsnow, its MikeG personal webpage.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Mike Gruntman (professor) has been accepted
 Draft:Mike Gruntman (professor), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! JC7V (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Articles for Creation Help Desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Copyright
It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Darrell Judge, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson -- wasnt this article in draft space??? Moreover, I had just began to start making it. Also, we were the contributors of original article. Pi3146 (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to give a very short summary of what seem to me to be the essential issues, because the full copyright situation is very complicated, but I will direct you to more complete information. Wikipedia's main copyright policy, Copyrights, runs to over 3800 words, and it also links to at least two dozen other policies, guidelines, licenses, and other pages about various copyright issues, the total length of which runs into many tens of thousands of words. (In my opinion the single worst change that has happened to Wikipedia over the years is the expansion of policies and guidelines. At first there were just a few basic principles that all fitted onto one fairly short page, now there is a huge body of text on countless pages, many of them very long. This contributes to making editing Wikipedia much less accessible than it originally was.) As I explained above, if you own copyright in material and wish to release it for use on Wikipedia then we need proof of your authority to do so. This is not just some arbitrary bureaucratic rule, it is necessary, because unfortunately we do very frequently get people making false claims about copyright, in most cases probably through ignorance, but sometimes intentionally. If you wish to make previously published content for which you own the copyright available on Wikipedia then details on how to do so are available at Donating copyrighted materials: see the section headed "Granting us permission to copy material already online". As for the page being in draft space, even pages in draft space are publicly available to anyone who knows how to look for it, and material posted on a public web site needs to satisfy copyright law: the fact that the page has "Draft:" in front of its title doesn't make it exempt from the law.


 * Another important point is that you need to be sure that you do actually own the copyright of the material in question; even if you are its author, you may have ceded the copyright to the previous publisher. The following excerpts from the terms of use of legacy.com indicate that content published there is not available for republishing under free licensing terms such as Wikipedia uses, and unless by some means not described in those terms of use you retained rights beyond those granted by that web site when you posted there, you cannot release it for re-publication on Wikipedia. It may be that you have retained such rights, but you need to be sure that you do, and you also need to provide evidence that you do if you are to post the content here.


 * Legacy.com, Inc. grants you permission (which may be revoked at any time for any reason or no reason) to view the Services and to download, integrate via authorized social media application, email, or print individual pages of the Services in accordance with these Terms of Use and solely for your own personal, non-commercial use, provided you do not remove any trademark, copyright or other notice contained on such pages. No other use is permitted. You may not, for example, incorporate the information, content, or other material from the Services in any database, compilation, archive or cache. You may not modify, copy, distribute, re-publish, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, reuse, resell, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, content, material, software, products or services obtained through the Services, except as specifically noted above.


 * You also agree ... not copy any content, including death notices, for republication in any other newspaper or other publication, whether in print or on-line.


 * You agree that the consequences of commercial use or re-publication may be so serious and incalculable that monetary compensation may not be a sufficient or appropriate remedy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest on Mike Gruntman
Hello. As discussed above it appears you are in conflict of interest when you edit topics related to Mike Gruntman, because as a colleague/advisee you have a direct work relationship to him. Please read our policy on COI carefully. Notwithstanding the repeated copyright problems you are with the picture of him, it appears you are still engaging in systematic promotion of his publications, e.g. here, here here or there. I urge you to stop edits related to Mike Gruntman. There are likely plenty of other topics on Wikipedia which could benefit from your expertise. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

OTRS permissions
To answer your question from File:MkeGruntman PP.jpg, you do not have to do anything right now. The permissions verification process is run by volunteers and is backlogged, so it may take some time for someone to process the new replies on 2018121910007152. I know that the process can be complex at times, but we have to make sure we are following copyright law and the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons policies and guidelines. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page or at the OTRS noticeboard. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:MkeGruntman PP.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MkeGruntman PP.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Further edits in conflict of interest
I urge you again to stop your edits on Mike Gruntman, for the reasons detailed in my last message above in March. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You are just proving to be self righteous nuisance
@Ariadacapo How else would you update the factual information on somebody...wiki is full of pages (hollywood, bureaucrats astronauts) maintained by professional PR organisations...instead of content you start pointing to intent ..its ultra left wing nonsense by consistently pointing to COI.. Now you reverted the changes which included tenure of MG being chair ending a few months ago! ..even citing sources is a problem for you... btw,,,If I created the page..then offcourse I will have more affinity to keep it updated...I declared already that I dont work for him but we are in same field (ENA) where his contributions need to be acknowledged..(wiki cites his articles hundreds of times)


 * You are expected to remain civil. You are welcome to edit Wikipedia, and the pages you see that need improvement. But if your only contribution here is to ever write about and cite a single person, and you simply ignore other editors, it’s not going to work. Again, please find other topics to edit. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, I'm J. M.. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.

Also, please do not ignore the repeated COI warnings above. It looks like your primary purpose on Wikipedia is promoting Mike Gruntman.—J. M. (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello JM ,

it looks wiki pretends that all pages are created here (esp celebs/movies/brands etc) out off goodwill and not by dedicated PR agencies. Now my promoting MG as academic is that he is already widely cited across wiki without my contributions. As world leading expert, faculty and PI on several NASA missions, the educational content he is creating is meant for masses to clarify concepts that otherwise are very foggy on wiki. This requires effort and motivation -- which you are killing for your own righteous and confused ideals. I am not sure about these warnings either...then every few days you ask us to contribute in both money and content --but proclaim you are FREE!

Btw the first external link on molniya page is also by MG, not added by me ! this is was a followup video for further details !

Moreover, I am only editing MG because I know the field/domain and peer review it. I am not editing justin Bieber because I dont know music .--its logical!


 * The Conflict of interest guideline exists for a reason, even if you, as a COI editor, cannot see or understand it, or disagree with it. These are not confused ideals, this is a long-standing consensus reached by the Wikipedia community, for very good reasons, based on years of experience and other Wikipedia rules. As the guideline says, "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know", and "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". This applies to inserting links to external websites as well.—J. M. (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your love for bureaucracy and archaic paper pushing is astounding. Instead of focusing on educational content, you are worried about relationship between me and author !!