User talk:Sri.dhyana

Conflict of interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, 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;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm an old-time science fiction fan, and have a vast reservoir of goodwill towards NASA. That won't mean that you can get away with posting stuff about your employer into an article about your employer. Your best bet is to offer links to the information on the article's talk page, and let editors without a conflict of interest decide what does or doesn't belong there. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
The recent edit you made to the page Talk:NASA Astrobiology Institute constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Kbdank71 14:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it was done in good faith, but you do not remove content from the talk page when the matter is addressed. The contents of the article's talk page are part of the historical record. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm hoping to chime in here - forgive me for not being savvy to how wikipedia works. my name is daniella scalice and i work at the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI). i posted the new description of NAI yesterday. everything i posted is public information that NAI provides on its website. our intention was to provide factual information about the organization to wikipedia users. the information already up there wasn't totally complete, and we felt we were doing wikipedia users a service by providing the correct, complete info.

i'm concerned that some of the things wikipedia has posted about the article - for example:

i don't believe anything we posted was in conflict with the interest or spirit of how wikipedia works, in terms of being a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. i've noticed that other pages with authoritative information on a particular subject are "semi-protected" and our intention was to explore that for the NAI posting. perhaps we should have worked that out with wikipedia first - i apologize for the lapse in protocol... again, our intention was to provide wikipedia users with the most accurate information about what NAI is. NAI is a part of NASA, a public, non-profit, government organization, so we are definitely not in competition with anyone...so i don't see how we're promoting our own interests.

also, the comments about tone and sounding like an advertisement- i'm confused about that...can you clarify please? NAI doesn't have anything to advertise. i didn't see any suggestions on the talk page...??

can you please help me understand why the neutrality of the article is being disputed? we are completely neutral - as i said, a government, public-service organization - we are just trying to provide accurate information... i can see where this would come into play about articles that have to do with definitions of things that rely on opinions, but that's not the case here.

finally, when i made the change yesterday, i did include a citation...

PLEASE - any help you can provide is greatly appreciated - we're not trying to perpetrate anything on the wikipedia users! perhaps things like NAI shouldn't even be on wikipedia???

Dscalice (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Daniella Scalice