DeanKamen

Hello, DeanKamen! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Wikipedia

Dear Dean Kamen,
Quiddity requested that I look at your edits and help out. Alas, I didn't not get around to it until now due to real world commitments. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers. Even as an administrator, I get paid exactly the same as any other editor.

It seems likely you may have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia's purpose: A neutral encyclopedia of all knowledge built upon citations to reliable sources. Neutrality is foremost our goal—essentially our Prime Directive.

While many Wikipedia editors have subject matter expertise, experts are frequently frustrated by editing articles they seem to be most qualified to write. Editors who know nothing about the topic revert their edits, add tags demanding citations, and rearrange their topic organization. Much of the paradox stems from Wikipedia's need for verifiable sources which require original research and synthesis to be removed. What is obvious to an expert is frequently a completely different experience for a layman. Based on the need for verifiability, it should be evident that raising hypothetical scenarios or doing even minimalistic marketing research are contrary to our goals.

Unfortunately, frequent editors spend a good deal of time countering spammers promoting their interests. This leads, inexcusably, to a tendency to presuming bad faith of those editing contrary to the rules. In this case, Quiddity did an admirable job handling things. Perhaps if you review your talk page history now you'll see it wasn't as bad as you thought.

It's too bad your experience with Wikipedia came from this direction. I'm sure you have plenty to contribute, and we welcome you to do so in the future. —EncMstr (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are trying to say is that someone who does not know anything about the PUMA has more power to control what is said than the person who has develop and build the PUMA? Is that correct? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanKamen (talk • contribs)

Not at all. Editors with subject matter knowledge are more likely to be aware of references, particularly the paper kind. Expanding and organizing articles, and backing up statements ("citing") are easier and more natural for experts. However, conflict of interest and point-of-view bias are hard to move beyond when one is closely related to a topic.

I don't think in terms of control or power necessarily, but if there is an "authority", then it is our community standards, codified in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which specify what is to be said. Non-experts can usually apply this autonomously. Occasionally experts are called for, such as presently at Path 15. One of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia is that verifiability is more important than truth. —EncMstr (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone higher up in Wikipedia that I could talk to about this issue? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanKamen (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure which issue you mean, but you can try to find an appropriate forum in the dispute resolution guideline which, naturally enough, is concerned with dispute resolution between editors. Possibly you want to question a policy or guideline. For that, I'm not so sure, but an inquiry on the associated policy or guideline talk page would be a good place to start. For example, if you felt the conflict-of-interest policy needs refinement, try WT:COI, the talk page for WP:COI. —EncMstr (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So instead of giving me an answer, you just give me a lot of paperwork? Is this a joke right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanKamen (talk • contribs)

Since I didn't understand what you are asking—and you have yet to clarify it—I answered in such a way that you could investigate appropriate topics at your leisure. My best guess is that you think that you should be editing articles about your companies, or those of competitors since you have more knowledge about them than most people. —EncMstr (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Gaza flotilla raid has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it was unconstructive?

Because, well... It is obvious that you feel strongly about the issue covered in that article, which is quite understandable. However, Wikipedia must only use information that is sourced to reliable, professional publications. Your edit removed a great deal of sourced material, and replaced it with material that was not sourced. I know that you may argue that the sources are biased, but since everyone has different opinions on things of this nature, you should make a note on the discussion page of the article and explain why the sources should not be trusted. Simply removing sourced material, unless it is simple vandalism or direct attacks on specific people, should generally not be done. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Gaza flotilla raid. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

This was necessary since your editing was highly disruptive in an article that already is subject to repeated editing conflicts. — Sebastian 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DeanKamen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have a right to speak my mind. Why do you think I was highly disruptive by reporting a point of view?

Decline reason:

Please review WP:ARBPIA. It is of vital importance to maintain neutral. Forceful editing like your repeated section blanking is inappropriate, even if the article wasn't on one revert restriction. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(edit conflict) In reply to your question: Sorry, you do not have a right to delete whole sections that you disagree with, and "speak your mind" on an article page, as you did here. The reason I wrote "highly disruptive" is because this article is currently edited by many people, so that each of your edits, and its reversion, causes potential edit conflicts. I usually warn people before blocking them, but I felt that quick action was needed for that reason. — Sebastian 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DeanKamen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am sorry. I am Dean Kamen. I invented the Segway and FIRST. I have a lot of friends in Israel that have been hurt by this Gaza thing."

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Tim Song (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DeanKamen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will not destory things again. Som of my friends form Israel were killed in action being in Gaza during the war. What is your name? So that I may know who I am speaking to please?

Decline reason:

The large number of typographic errors in this request gives me doubt that you are Dean Kamen as you claimed in your previous unblock request. I apologize, but per WP:REALNAME, I am upholding your block, restricting your ability to edit this page, and referring you to our volunteer response team (OTRS) to verify your identity before taking any further action on your unblock requests. —DoRD (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(By the way, don't take this as undue harshness; though one of our principles here is Assume Good Faith, we do feel it necessary to take extra verification steps when users assert they are prominent public figures. We've had to do exactly the same thing over the weekend with an account claiming to be Senator Carl Levin.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)