User talk:Quantumpundit

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! —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

October 2019
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Jonathan Dowling, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Understood. Quantum Pundit.

Melcous (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I second that. Please only mark those edits as minor which are unlikely to be controversial — a revert of a good-faith edit, as you did with Special:Diff/922363234, is definitely not minor.

Apologies for that. I apparently was editing at the same time as somebody else and did not notice that I wiped out their changes. Quantum Pundit.

Also please use edit summaries when you edit. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * and sign your name with four ~s. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC).

Conflict of interest
Hi, please check Conflict of interest and consider using Template:UserboxCOI to declare your (pretty obvious) conflict of interest with the articles you edit. --mfb (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Dowling-Neven law for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dowling-Neven law is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dowling-Neven law until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:COI
Would you like to say if you have any connection to Jonathan Dowling that would lead to a WP:Conflict of interest that should be declared? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I see you have already done this. You might like to read the guideline WP:AUTO, which says "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged" and "It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself. You should generally let others do the writing". Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC).

It is difficult to imagine that somebody without a close connection to Dowling could come up with all the difficult-to-find references that you insist upon. Quantumpundit (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Quantumpundit
 * And so? Even if you disagree with a policy, in return for the privilege of editing Wikipedia, you are expected to follow it. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC).
 * If references for a somewhat recent topic (like living people) are hard to find then it is questionable if their content is relevant. --mfb (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Paid editing
If you received a stipend from an institution and you write about that institution or work done at it, then you may qualify as a WP:Paid editor. As such, you should declare your standing and follow the policies pertaining to it like COIPAYDISCLOSE. This should not inhibit you from writing about matters not relating to the institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC).

Is this why the US Army award was deleted? I am not currently employed nor paid by the US Army, nor have I been since 1998. Could we, therefore, re-instate the US Army award? It was properly referenced with a link to a neutral US Army document. — Quantumpundit (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Quantumpundit


 * You have implicitly WP:OUTed yourself above as Jonathan Dowling, whose BLP you created in 2007 and have made so many contributions to since that time. You did not declare a COI there until challenged at Articles for deletion/Dowling-Neven law in October 2019. From the web site of Louisiana State University Dowling holds a tenured position which, lacking any other evidence, I have to assume pays him a stipend. In that case you were an undeclared WP:Paid editor who was using Wikipedia as a forum to promote his professional career. In accordance with Conflict of interest guidelines edits by a person with COI on pages affected by WP:COI or WP:PAID should be proposed first on the talk pages. If other editors in good standing think that the edits are suitable for inclusion they will add them. Your argument about when you were paid by the Army verges on WP:Wikilawyering. Whatever the case, there is a COI. I see that you have once again added the army award to your BLP . If you cannot edit Wikipedia in conformity with its conventions and guidelines you could find yourself facing a WP:Topic ban. If you feel that you are being badly done by you may wish to take the matter to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC).


 * I disagree with Xxanthippe about this particular edit, which I don’t think is problematic. Nevertheless, the COI problem remains: what this article needs most right now is substantial contributions from independent editors, not a 100% complete list of awards., I urge you to let go of the Jonathan Dowling article, and instead use your expertise to edit article on other topics. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The source of the army award (which as one of fifty seems to be rather a minor award) appears to be a WP:RS, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to act as a free web host for peoples’ CVs and the full details of those. If User:Quantumpundit/Dowling wishes to include this award on his BLP he should put in a request on Talk:Jonathan Dowling or else on WP:BLP/Noticeboard, in either case declaring his COI. Independent editors will assess whether the item is important enough to be included in the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC).


 * Understood. Quantumpundit (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Quantumpundit

Deceased Wikipedia user
I propose, out of respect for the now deceased Wikipedia user QuantumPundit AKA Jonathan Dowling, that all of this talk on his user page now be deleted. It is no longer relevant to his user page or his biographical page Jonathan Dowling. [This article] discusses the long legacy that Dowling left on the scientific world. The current talk page does not need to be part of his legacy. Mwilde (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)