User talk:Senor Crocodile

Your submission at Articles for creation: Institutional courage (January 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Institutional courage and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Institutional courage, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Institutional_courage Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Institutional_courage reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

COI edits? Jennifer Freyd & False Memory Syndrome Foundation
Hello, Senor Crocodile. 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 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 WP: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. Thank you. Jooojay (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest. Do you? Senor Crocodile (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * What is your relationship to these two articles? Why are you using primary sources as citation and edit warring? Jooojay (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Umm, because I am interested in the content, which is highly timely? And because I am a scientist who has expertise in this material? I’m new to Wikipedia and may not use all the exactly right conventions, but there is no need to marginalize me in this way. Senor Crocodile (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Your recent editing history at Jennifer Freyd shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. HaeB (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I already made a talk page entry before I got this warning. Senor Crocodile (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Posting on the talk page while continuing to revert is not sufficient under the 3RR policy.
 * Also, to follow up on the article talk page discussion regarding some other general issues (i.e. not specific to the article subject) - I'm genuinely sorry that you felt you were being treated unfairly there, so I'm going to spend a bit more time explaining:
 * Please read this note about avoiding misleading edit summaries: WP:SUMMARYNO. You say it wasn't intentional, but describing the wholesale deletion of an entire passage as "improved writing on page" is likely to lead people astray who are viewing the edit history to decide whether they should look at the edit directly.
 * I get it that it's not easy to be familiar with every policy nuance as a beginner. But I find it hard to see a good justification for leaving out the crucial "unsourced or poorly sourced" qualifier in the policy quotes you used to justify your edits here, here and here - especially after Proofbygazing had already pointed out that this is what the discussion hinges on.
 * All that said, as discussed in more detail on the article talk page, this is certainly a sensitive topic that needs to be dealt with special attention to the relevant policies. It's not wrong to raise questions in that regard and express your disagreement with how the article has covered it for the past decade. What is problematic though are actions like those noted above. Lastly, as mentioned, Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy may also be worth a closer look (judging from your comment at which seems to be based on the assumption that Wikipedia must never mention statements by third parties who contradict statements by the article subject).
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this explanation. I appreciate that you took extra time to help me understand the issues at hand. I will read the links to guide my future posts.

Re: my truncated policy quote re: living persons, the text box I was typing in for that edit explanation had a character limit that I kept bumping up against. So I trimmed the quoted policy to just include what I thought was most pertinent to my point. Thanks to your input, I can understand why that could be interpreted in a way I did not intend.

Thank you again for the extra time you spent to help me learn to be a better Wikipedia contributor! Senor Crocodile (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Jooojay (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Institutional courage concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Institutional courage, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)