Pkjmoser

Help me!

Please help me with... How do I remove the tag on my Wikipedia page for Paul Moser? Wikipedia seems to work hard not to be helpful in this area. Why is that? There is no 'conflict of interest' in my page. I gave approval to my spouse to correct obvious grammatical and factual errors introduced by Wikipedia. So, please remove the tag; it's misplaced by Wikipedia. Paul Moser Pkjmoser (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

When you want to write about yourself, or about your spouse, or your relative or friend or employer, that's a conflict of interest. Not to say that you can't do it, but you have to be aware that this is what it is. DS (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Helped

So, that's Wikipedia's idea of 'Help'? Stunning. Who's supposed to correct the obvious grammatical and factual mistakes introduced by Wikipedia? Your reviser butchered the revision of the entry for Paul Moser, as if a junior-high student had at it. That's OK? In addition, am I to believe that Wikipedia lacks the resources to make the obvious distinction between a possible COI and an actual COI. That's astonishing. You aren't helping your reputation with this kind of crass and dismissive behavior. I appeal to a supervisor for relief from this unprofessional conduct. -- Paul Moser

That's two separate issues. A) You are certainly allowed to correct grammatical and linguistic errors in the article; I apologize if my wording led you to think otherwise. B) If there are issues regarding the content in the article, it's recommended that you raise the issue on the article's talk page, so that someone else — someone without a conflict of interest — can implement the corrections for you. Okay? DS (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your tag suggests that the entry for Paul Moser does not have a 'neutral point of view'. That allegation is simply false. The entry does not have anything evaluative in it. If you think it does, please point it out, and I'll have it removed. Please tell me what to remove to have the misleading tag removed. The entry's point of view is neutral, and nothing has been presented to show that it isn't neutral. Put me in touch with a supervisor if you won't help with this or make the needed correction. The treatment by Wikipedia so far has been simply unfair. --Paul Moser

How about the following solution? Let's remove the misleading tag that alleges lack of a 'neutral point of view', and then if you find and give evidence of a lack of neutrality in the content, I'll defer to you. So far nobody has presented needed evidence of lack of neutrality in the entry. That seems fair. OK? -- Paul Moser

Nobody has given evidence of lack of neutrality in the entry's content; so, I'll take that as a green light for us to remove the misleading tag. --Paul Moser

I would not interpret that as a green light, in general you shouldn't edit articles you have a conflict of interest issue with (like this one). What you can do is propose changes on the talk page. To put it simply the light will never turn green. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You haven't shown that I have a conflict of interest, because that's different from a *possible* conflict of interest. What needs to be removed from the entry to have the tag removed, say by you? Are you proposing that I find someone to remove the tag for me? --Paul Moser

Unless you're lying and you're not the subject of the page of course you have a conflict of interest (as does anyone you instruct to edit the page), don't be absurd. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Does it help to be mean-spirited about this? Go ahead if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile, why don't you show where the entry needs to be changed to avoid the conflict you allege or the alleged lack of neutrality. Why not try to be helpful instead of adversarial? Is that asking too much? How do we get the misleading tag removed? Or, at least indicate where there's a lack of neutrality in the entry's content. --Paul Moser

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The only way to reverse the COI issue is to go back in time, the edits have been made. Also I think you've misread the tag, it say "It may require" not "It requires" so the tag doesn't actually make that allegation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You say: "The only way to reverse the COI issue is to go back in time, the edits have been made." How would that be done? Or, are you saying that the tag will always be there? --Paul Moser

I'm saying the COI editing happened and what we have on the page is the legacy of that. Until thats all replaced the tag will remain, even in the future there will be a note placed on the talk page about the COI editing and involved accounts. We can't make it go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you just remove the list of books on the entry? Why? Those are documented in Amazon.com and elsewhere. --Paul Moser

Amazon is not considered to be reliable source for our purposes. If you have sources like reviews which talk about the book extensively they can of course be added. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Now that you gutted the entry, Horse, are you going to remove the tag? --Paul Moser

No, the severity of the COI issue is overwhelming. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

On what ground did you gut the page, even though the list is verifiable on Amazon.com? That's overkill. If you won't restore it, I'll appeal to a supervisor. This is not fair, given the easy verification of the book list. --Paul Moser

The entry had links to the books' publishers. Aren't they reliable to document the fact of the books' existence? The rules of the game here are shadowy. Do specify how to have the list of books restored on the basis of evidence. Let's get a supervisor involved, for the sake of minimal fairness. --Paul Moser

It was unsourced information about a living person, that generally gets deleted on sight. We don't have supervisors here, we aren't employees. I told you, reviews of the books in WP:RS are the easiest way to do it. An Amazon listing or a listing from its publisher doesn't do anything for us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to explore an alternative path to conflict resolution I can point you towards Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

So, if the items on the book list are linked to published reviews, the list can be restored? Is that the game? Do confirm or disconfirm. (It's stunning that a publisher's site won't serve, but I won't ask who's behind such arbitrariness; talk about lack of neutrality.)-- Paul Moser

A publisher doesn't establish WP:DUEWEIGHT, this is an encyclopedia not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. If you have reviews we can even have a few notes about whats in the books and what the reviewers thought. If there has been a considerable amount of coverage about a particular book they can be established as stand alone articles as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Does that mean the list of my authored books can be restored if there are links to published reviews in journals? There are plenty of published reviews of my books, for whatever that's worth. -- Paul Moser

I would do so with pleasure if the sources were provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, Horse. A list of the sources for reviews is forthcoming soon. Thanks! --Paul Moser

Horse: Can you kindly restore the list of publications found in the previous version of the entry on me? This kind of list is allowed for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Allison. So, it should be allowed in the entry on me, which now ends the list of pubs at 2010. Please help with this. -- Paul Moser

Calling for a fair-spirited editor at Wiki to review the unfair treatment here, and to restore the previous version of the entry on me (which does not omit pubs since 2010). -- Paul Moser

Can anyone kindly help to correct the disruptive editing by some Wikipedia editors on this entry? The unfair treatment is breathtaking, and relief is needed. --Paul Moser

I have no idea who submitted the following on the talk page for the entry on me, but it's very wise, and it calls for attention. Can a fair-minded editor follow through? --Paul Moser "@Mrollie: the original block for the "someone" using multiple accounts was probably highly excessive and unfair. Hence, the probable "why" behind the usage of multiple accounts. Intentions matter here, especially good intentions. You all can't block every username and IP address in the world, can you? If you think you can, good luck. That seems like an awful lot of wasted time and energy though when you could just put up what was already originally up. Why not just be fair and make the requested updates to the page? That's what's fair. Any minimally educated adult (in the USA or in the world in general) knows that Wikipedia is not (ultimately) a reliable source of information. So why the bizarre and excessive blockage of this one page from accurate updates? Some unreliable, prejudiced editors on Wikipedia are abusing their powers and are only providing more evidence of the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of knowledge/information. The requested information to be put up was already up once. Some ill-willed and biased Wikipedia editor took it down. Why? The best answer I can imagine is probably because they don’t like the author’s viewpoints. What ever happened to respect of other viewpoints? Please just put the requested information up. Requesting the page to be updated with information that was already (originally) there isn’t an extreme request. At the very least, just update the book list. If the author in question is going to have a page up (that they cannot control), then that author deserves to have a page that reflects something closer to “reality”, not some biased construction that resembles something like a Jackson Pollock painting. Please try hard to be an empathic human, not a brick wall. The very first step in that direction is making a “fair” update. According to Wikipedia’s founding rules, anyone should be able to make updates. Certain Wikipedia editors are now neglecting those rules for arbitrary and exclusionary rules, rules that fit the biased whims of seemingly unbalanced Wikipedia editors who appear to live in a Wikipedia fantasyland of editing power. Please fight the impulse to yield to unfair, editing power and yield to a fair request instead. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:BE16:26BD:F163:1204:2F69:573C (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)