Sebagr

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dibs, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Dibs was changed by Sebagr (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2010-12-08T15:08:14+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Promotion & Notability Guidelines on Recent Edits

@Sebagr: I have reverted all your recent 149 148 edits[1] of deep-sky objects, which can only be described as either self promotion and/or advertising one website ('DSO Browser')[2] for its promotion. I refer you to WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, where these edits clearly violate by "attracting notice" just to one solitary website. Please also read WP:PSTS if you are still uncertain of these adopted guidelines.

• All edits you've made have been only done between 29th May[3] to 30th May[4], and none made previous to this.
• None are primary sources nor to they related to the article's text.
• This edit in particular if fairly grievous.[5], as it overwrites a legitimate external link, which is a primary source.
• Direct evidence here [6] shows direct relation of these edits to your recent links.

Further edits of a similar nature will be reverted, and may also be subject to sanctions or restriction of editing privileges. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I'm sorry, but I disagree. The links I added are quite useful for other people. What I did was to add useful, meaningful links to a related resource in the "External links" section.

• It shouldn't matter the timeframe in which I made those changes (who cares if I worked hard a couple of hours or if I did them in several weeks). It was a manual work, not automated, not made by a robot. Your captchas took care of handling that.
• It shoudln't matter that they are not primary sources - they are External links and not References. By definition, they provide extra information and in this case they provide functionality that are not available in Wikipedia (for example, checking the altitude of deep sky objects in the sky for any given location and time).
• The "fairly grievous"[7] edit was an honest mistake. You can see I didn't do that in other articles. We all make mistakes.
• The "direct evidence"[8] you mention is my profile in that site. The site I linked works as a social network in some regards and there are thousands of profiles there.

It took me quite a while to add all those links which were actually providing information to amateur astronomers and you reverted everything! Is there a way to re-add them all at once? I don't agree with your accusations at all. I'm clearly adding useful information for fellow astronomers. Sebagr (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: BTW, I wrote the previous message, I wasn't logged in so the username was not recorded.

User:Sebagr Please sign all posts with three tildes , else we don't know who posts are from.Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: Sorry, didn't know that. Please check my previous post, right below your initial message in this very page. I believe my edits were legit and we should revert your reverts. Having to do all of them manually again would be a pain. Sebagr (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sebagr:All your alleged stated complaints are irrelevant, because you didn't follow the rules of obvious promotion and advertising website, especially ones which your are directly related too. If you wish to revert this, you are welcome to try WP:ANI, but other editors are unlikely to support these obvious violations. Wikipedia has nothing to do with "providing information to amateur astronomers" simply because you say so. Please follow the policies and learn the way editing works here, else you will face repeating similar reverts. It might look unfair, but these edits of yours were regardless an obvious means of promotion. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Saying "I believe my edits were legit and we should revert your reverts." and "Having to do all of them manually again would be a pain." is irrelevant. You have been shown why these edits were properly reverted, and to reinstate them still violates the needed neutrality and the non-compliance not using primary sources for these edits. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: With all due respect, what defines "promotion and advertising"? How are the links I provided different from others? Just to cite an example, in Orion Nebula you have a link to an external site[9] providing similar information. That very website is linked from "External links" in hundreds of other pages, as you can see in Carina_Nebula, Whirlpool_Galaxy, Andromeda_Galaxy, etc. Those links showed me it was ok to add useful, related and meaningful links, and so I did. How is it that my link is considered self promotion but that one isn't? Is it because I made all edits in a short timespan? If so, it seems a ridiculous argument. I understand Wikipedia has nothing to do with "providing information to amateur astronomers", but it definitely has to do with "providing information". I added useful links, you can't deny that. And the links I added are in line with those I mention. Information-wise, both links are similar and it seems you are ok with one of them but not mine. You should care about information, not who adds that information or how he/she does it. It just seems you acted in a rather automatic way without analyzing the information. I can't imagine the amount of edits you review daily, but I'm complaining because my edits are absolutely legit. If you can explain to me the difference between the links I just cited and mine, I will stop complaining. Otherwise, let's please revert this.Sebagr (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, please sign all posts with four tildes , else we don't know who posts are from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sebagr(talk) 04:48, 31 May 2016‎ (UTC)

@Sebagr:@Casliber: Your edits are all from one site which you can be easily identified where you are associated in contributing. Adding the 148 links to pages in a day does looks like exactly like promotion of that site, especially where there are thousand other similar websites like it. Hence, it in not presented in a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. It has nothing to do with 'short timespans' nor 'providing information.' (I have claimed nor stated that at all.) Links to the SEDS pages have been added by unrelated users, and these webpages contain lots of information related to the content of the article.

As saying ; "You should care about information, not who adds that information or how he/she does it.". Well sorry, but editing here is the exact opposite of this statement. It is very important what sources are added and who these edits come from, because if it didn't, then it avoids the necessity of having a neutral point of view WP:NPOV

As for saying things like "It just seems you acted in a rather automatic way without analyzing the information.", is avoiding another important pillar I.e. Good faith WP:GF (which I recommend you read.) Actually, when I saw one of the edits, I looked at the linked site, then I looked at many those on other edited pages. I did carefully did an careful analysis of the evidence available, including your association to that site, and made the reverts that were absolutely justified, as I've explained. None of them were made personally, but objectively.

Also saying "I'm complaining because my edits are absolutely legit." or "I added useful links, you can't deny that." Sorry. Your edits are not 'legit' nor 'useful' at all, as I have already explained. I have seem similar edits over the years, and have seen very similar outcomes.

Again, if you do feel my actions were against the editing rules, the please go down the path of an administrator's judgement, and file a complaint using WP:ANI. However, the violations are pretty clear cut. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1:How is it that you decided that the links were not useful? They provide interactive information (such as how high a deep sky object appears in the sky for different parts of the planet) and astrophotography for those objects, useful research links, and related nearby objects (none of those items provided by Wikipedia). It seems to me you don't know enough about astronomy to make that judgement - no offence.

The WP:NPOV you mention seems useful for the main content of articles, not external links which aim to expand what the article has or can't provide. The problem here is that you are judging the new content as not useful when it clearly is.

So, given that the links are indeed useful, your other argument is basically saying that if someone else did those edits, not all of them in one day, it would be fine. I thought Wikipedia cared about information, and not who provides it. I understand you can't possibly understand everything that gets edited in Wikipedia, and in this case it seems evident to me you don't have the required knowledge to assess if the links I added provide more information or not - you are saying they don't when they clearly do. So you are not only misjudging the content but also saying that if other person did the edits more slowly it would be ok. No doubt, I will file a complain. This isn't right.Sebagr (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"No doubt, I will file a complain. This isn't right." Go right ahead, you have the right to do that.

However, I'm concerned that you are not listening to what I'm saying, and making further wild excuses to justify your own actions, isn't going to solve the problem. Again, perhaps WP:COI and WP:ACTUALCOI or WP:POTENTIALCOI might help.

As for the growing degree of incivility, it is considered quite unacceptable here. Please make sure you understand WP:CIV and identify WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. As for saying "It seems to me you don't know enough about astronomy to make that judgement...": that is just rude without any real evidence or justification, and makes solving your edits far more problematic. Thanks.Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: As for "that is just rude without any real evidence or justification", I clarified "no offence". I based my accusation in your lack of arguments in saying that the site doesn't provide anything useful, when I know it does - and in fact I listed 4 things the site have which Wikipedia doesn't. I'm sorry you felt this is rude, I'm just stating the facts. Sebagr (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Saying "I based my accusation in your lack of arguments in saying that the site doesn't provide anything useful,..." I've never said that, and stating such falsehoods gains you no favours. It fails, as I've said, because of WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTABILITY especially by "attracting notice" just to one solitary website. It also fails by the WP:PSTS criteria. Your association alone with the site justifies the reverts. Disagree as much as you like, but those are enough "arguments" to revert your previous edits. Unless you can gain consensus from other editors, it is unlikely these edits will be reinstated. Actually, the onus of proof that these edits are valid is yourself. So far, you have not justified why these links were useful, even though there are many sites that offer nearly the exact same thing. I'm obligation to do no more.

As a new user here, I am obliged, though, to help guide users through the processes of editing. I have been restrained and have acted politely and completely within the guidelines with these problematic edits. However, insults, intimidation and avoiding civility is totally unacceptable. Continuing such behaviour is ill-advised, because others will simply ignore you, and you plight to gain needed consensus will just evaporate. Your present bullying behaviour extend to me here is deplorable, especially for someone with little of editing experience here nor understanding the rules of editing. Frankly, at the moment, you are a great liability to the project (No offence, eh?) Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at wikipedia's External links policy, I tend to think this website doesn't offer material that isn't on wikipedia, though does have a navigable interface to facilitate exploring deep sky objects - my impression is that it doesn't qualify as a valid external link but I can see some case for the other side of the argument. I recommend discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy to gage consensus among a wider array of editors that edit astronomy articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Casliber. As per "I tend to think this website doesn't offer material that isn't on wikipedia", I already listed things that are not in Wikipedia that this site offers. I appreciate the discussion is getting long, but this was already discussed.Sebagr (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Where did you do that? This page is getting long but I scanned through and couldn't see where you did this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: This is what I said before: "How is it that you decided that the links were not useful? They provide interactive information (such as how high a deep sky object appears in the sky for different parts of the planet) and astrophotography for those objects, useful research links, and related nearby objects (none of those items provided by Wikipedia)." I stand corrected: *some* of those "useful research links" are available in some of the pages I edited, but not all of them. Still, the other points remain. Sebagr (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sebagr:@Casliber: Nice try, but all this obfuscation is irrelevant Sebagr. Let's cut to the chase. This central issue is that Your association alone with the site justifies the reverts. Reading WP:PROMOTION explains that. Q. If your own photographs are on this site, then how does 148 linked edits placed against all the brightest deep-sky from one website cannot be construed as self-promotion?

C'mon. The very first two edits you made 'tested the water'. No one noticed. Then eighteen hours later added all these other 146 links one after the other. The hesitancy is notable, because you knew you might be found to have a conflict of interest. (The central problem here.)

Continued failure to answer this fact, and the obvious avoidance by claiming everything else as some divisive excuse for justification. Face it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: So you confirm you are rejecting these links because of *who* added them instead of the value they add to Wikipedia (which I already proved)? Am I correct to assume that if other people added them it would be ok, since they do provide useful information?Sebagr (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest confirmed

@Sebagr:@Casliber: The real exposure with the 148 edits by this user that this is certainly deliberate advertising here.[10]. According to the words here [11], and also posted on 29th May 2016.

• Quote: "I'm constantly working on the site adding new features and pay special attention to user feedback." So you are owner of this site?

• Evidence of wanting to advertising the site. "If you find the site useful, please consider helping me spread the word among your friends, colleagues and clubs." (I found more than a dozen such places all made in the last few days.)

Ah! So you thought posting such things in Wikipedia would up the Google site numbers to get more attention to the site, eh?

<uncivil comment removed> Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I never denied contributing to the site I linked nor my interest on the site growth. My arguments always were that you are rejecting the links I added based on *who* added them rather than their usefulness to the articles. You insisted in that the links didn't add anything useful but I proved you wrong. So, can you definitely confirm you are rejecting these links because of *who* added them instead of the value they add to Wikipedia (which I already proved in the section above)? Am I correct to assume that if other people added them it would be ok, since they do provide useful information?Sebagr (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: By the way, you mention my 13 photographs in the site[12] but fail to mention the site has nearly 6,000 pictures [13], of which only about 0.2% are mine.Sebagr (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Side issues

@Sebagr:@Lemongirl942:@ThePlatypusofDoom.:@Casliber: I am becoming increasingly intolerant aware of Sebagr stating things I have not said nor implied, and it is avoiding Good Faith. A very good example is by Sebagr saying; "So, can you definitely confirm you are rejecting these links because of *who* added them instead of the value they add to Wikipedia" What? No one has said this. I previously said and explained the same thing here [14]

The inference is Sebgr not mine.

Other misrepresentations of the truth facts just from the post above.

• Quote. "By the way, you mention my 13 photographs in the site..." I never mention any 13 photographs at all. I highlighted the link between you and the website, which define the problem of COI.

• Quote. "...fail to mention the site has nearly 6,000 pictures" So darn what, I'm supposed to count them all now? It could have two or a million, and you still have COI problems, which you were not open about.

• Quote. "You insisted in that the links didn't add anything useful but I proved you wrong." Another absolute falsehood, stated probably only to fool others to believe you have been somehow wronged. Nowhere in the text did I say this or infer this ! (Again, read the title of this User page thread!) The quality nor usefulness in not the point. It one among many other similar websites, but fails the acid test because of defying WP:NOTABILITY rules.

Earlier evidence shows continue twisted and wrong interpretations of what I've have said.

What did I originally write on this is perfectly correct[15] The link to WP:PROMOTION talks about what is allowed or disallowed with promotion, which also mention problems of WP:COI under WP:NOTABILITY, the section says WP:ORGIND I.e. "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article. Qualifying published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service." Black and White. You just can't go round using trumped-up excuses and ignore what has already been pointed out. 14:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: You said "Sorry. Your edits are not 'legit' nor 'useful' at all". Never had I been misleading nor have I lied. I'm just an external contributor who isn't supposed to know every single policy Wikipedia has. Moderators are for that: moderate the content and help us while contributing. In the section below other moderators have explained the situation in a far more constructive way that you have. Take it down a notch, please.

Again, please sign all posts with four tildes , else we don't know who posts are from. (I thought this was an extension of the quote below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sebagr(talk) 01:22, 03 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Sorry. I just wanted to be explicit. I haven't thrown all the rules at you. Even after many years, I'm still learning things too. Also I am not a moderator, never said that or implied that. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I agree. Although you may have been misleading (not sure yet), you are being too harsh. Also, capitalizing words for emphasis is really annoying, and not a good idea to make a point. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to Sebagr: "Moderators" are not a thing. She's just a normal editor. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Sebagr. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about COI

Hi Sebagr! Thank you for your contributions. This is a (short) discussion to help you manage a conflict of interest. Note that conflict of interest is manageable according to our guidelines. We will go one step at a time. As a first step, could you please let us know your relationship with the website "dso-browser.com"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Lemongirl:. Thank you for helping out, it was my impression that the discussion with Arianewiki1 was not going anywhere. I initially created the website dso-browser.com and now I am one of many contributors. I never denied my interest in improving the website reach. It's a non-profit website driven by donations, exactly like Wikipedia, so I never thought these editions were a problem. I now see the policy is to discuss the proposed change in the Talk pages when there is a COI. Having said that, it seems the value of the links are being completely disregarded. I find it weird that if someone else edited the pages slowly rather than 148 links in a day (or even an anonymous user adding 1 link per day) the links would stay because they are useful and there would be no provable COI. Am I understanding things right? Sebagr (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, you pinged the wrong username. Anyway, thank you letting us know. The disclosure is the first part to handle the COI. The second important part is to propose changes. I see that you have already understood that though. I assume that you will stick to it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Now to answer your questions

• Even if someone else added these links (and added them slowly), it would still be considered as using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I have personally seen several cases before. In case of external links, there is also a specific guideline WP:EL#ADV. The guideline also states Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations.. That answers your question about non-profit websites. External links are usually added when there is consensus that the links will add value to the site. Usually these are links to websites which have been in use for a while and have a good track record. Wikipedia follows the world in usage - if let's say, the majority of the astronomy community is using your website, then it may be considered. Until that happens, Wikipedia is not supposed to use it.
• A provable COI linked to a particular editor doesn't need to always exist. I have seen cases where multiple accounts have been used to insert links over a time period. (None of the editors ever admitted to a COI). Since there was a concern about using Wikipedia for promotion, the links were simply added to the Spam Blacklist which prevented it from ever being added to Wikipedia.
• To gauge the value of your external link, a good place to discuss it would be here. When posting over there, please do disclose there that you are the creator of the website. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know if my suggestion above (to not insert links yourself and ask at the Wikiproject Astronomy about the suitability of your external link) is reasonable and if you are willing to follow it. You can reply here --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, If you need any help, I'll be happy to, just ping me on your talk page.ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the Issues in a Nutshell

• The central issue here is YOUR (Sebagr) OBJECTIVITY per WP:NPOV

• So far there is definitive evidence given by Sebagr is meets contention that this site is worthy, nor better or worse than many other available sources.

• Sebagr should have stated the possible COI, which applies not only to Wikipedia, but is commonplace in the community, workplaces, and financial issues. For example, on the SN 1006 I have written a formal paper on this object, but on the Talkpage I openly declared the fact.[16]

• Sebagr linked site is neither original nor unique nor adds to the deep-sky object articles in question. I.e. You first edit M10. How about these websites? [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] If I need to find culmination times or best time to observe you download the free Stellarium 14.3 [26] - here you get an image and hitting the 'Observability button' get rise, set, culmination; including the best time of the year set for your location. If you want to find images of M10, just do a Google search, and look under images.

1) This essentially says Sebagr links fail the WP:NOTABILITY test.

• Selecting all the brightest deep-sky objects, particularly all the Messier objects, were made only because you knew that would have the biggest impact in improving your Goggle profile. [See Note] (I actually found by accident the Jewel Box edit[27] in an unrelated Google search, where the Wikipedia link was first on the list, and highlighted the newly added external link. When I looked at the User's Contributions, I found all the 148 edits of exactly the same ilk and link to the same website. Not finding any discussion nor indication of COI, I suspected this was promoting, advertising and clearly violating Notability. Hence the deletions. Finding User name:Sebagr linked Sebagr to the disclosing webpage in question.

2) This essentially says your links fail the WP:PROMOTION.

I've acted appropriately and carefully in my actions, and I have spent the time explaining the action(s) properly, especially in the light this is a newbee User.

Plainly all continued false statements made by Sebagr are quite irrelevant to current situation of COI and non-disclosure, and this now such obvious evidence of deceptive conduct in clearly trying pushing through agendas to improve that Website's profile. If Sebagr links were even considered valid, it is obvious Sebagr has potential to raise the profile of individuals through search programs like Goggle or blogs, which seems the only motive.

I really can't see how any amateur astronomer could justify this website over many others, which is probably why unbiased editors have never put external links to them. I.e. There are literally thousands of books, websites, software, etc on, say, the Messier Objects, yet we are supposed to believe this site is seemingly "the only one" as a worthwhile one. Objectively, it clearly doesn't cut the mustard. But according to Sebagr here, where he openly states: "It seems to me you don't know enough about astronomy to make that judgement"[28]

Yet over the years I have observed every one of these objects, I've imaged some of them too. My experience has found not one source to be definitive. My shelf has probably 150 books related to the deep-sky, I have four astronomical software programs on my computer, have written extensively on many of them, and even taught, and presently represent an astronomical organisation on deep-sky objects. I even own two O-III filters and H-beta filter. (If 'my' judgement is not good enough, then we are all in deep do-dah.) Honestly, this site might OK, but it seems unremarkable against the many others I can choose from.

3) This essentially says that the removal of these links were justified, and there is no reason to have them returned based on the available evidence nor any consensus.

So Sebagr. Either prove COI is false, get proper consensus that it is not WP:PROMOTION, or drop it. (No offence.)

Important Note: I suggest editors should be aware the kinds of tactics being done here. These things have been done before. This article "The Art Of SEO For Wikipedia & 16 Tips To Gain Respect"[29], and many more like it [30][31], which adequately explains why Sebagr is doing. I, too, have act precisely as Wikipedia:Search engine optimization suggests. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sebagr, do you agree to not introduce any more links to your website to the page? You can, however, ask other editors to do it for you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: @ThePlatypusofDoom: Thank you guys for your explanations and pointing me in the right direction. User User:Arianewiki1 was only suggesting links to long articles expecting me to read everything and understand what you know as moderators, without suggesting me discussing this in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. I do agree to not introduce the links myself again.Sebagr (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to contact me if you have more questions. Make the proposals on the talk page. You should probably get a mentor if you are going to continue to contribute, please go to WP:Adopt-A-User, or I can contact someone who will mentor you if you want. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Sebagr! Let's just assume good faith. User:Arianewiki1 was not wrong in thinking that the addition of links was promotional - I would have concluded the same. Also they were not wrong in suggesting you to read those long guidelines/policies, although they could have explained in a better manner. I know that reading all of them seems tedious, but to be honest, it does help us to understand Wikipedia better. (In fact, I would say you can go through some of them now lol). In any case, I have explained you the situation above. I trust that you will discuss this at Wikiproject Astronomy. And it would be great if you contribute your knowledge in astronomy to Wikipedia as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942:@ThePlatypusofDoom: No so fast. This WP:COI has not meet its end game. There are issue regarding deliberate avoidance here, which are still under possible sanction. The improper removal under a wrongful accusation about my recently returned text here by ThePlatypusDoom has greatly interfered with the direction of this discussion - mostly to my disadvantage. While you are free to discuss things here, I will be adding much more on the WP:COI/N page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrapping things up

Hi Sebagr. I work on COI issues along with Lemongirl and Platypusofdoom. Thanks for posting at WT:AST. Hopefully you will get feedback there soon.

As Lemongirl noted above, there are two steps to managing COI in Wikipedia - disclosure and the peer review process. We seemed to have stepped around the first step - disclosure. I reviewed the site and it is clear that it is yours (see the FAQ, where you have a link to your linkedin page) - this is noted widely at sites that describe other websites, like this one. The domain registration was made through a company, so ownership of the domain isn't public information, but my sense is that you probably own the domain. The site also has a nicely demure advertising link in it, which I reckon is there to generate some revenue to at least cover some of the costs.

In any case, would you please confirm that you built the site and own the domain? Once you do that, we can talk about how to make that disclosure more formally in Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jytdog:, thanks for helping out :) I never intended to negate my relationship to the site nor lied about it. The only reason why I was not discussing that in the first place is because I wasn't aware of WP:COI and how important it was to Wikipedia. I thought the only important thing was if content was useful, but it seems I was wrong. In fact, I already disclosed my relationship with the site above in this very page: "I initially created the website dso-browser.com and now I am one of many contributors". I own the domain, someone has to, right? The FAQ page is quite outdated - it's almost identical as it was 5+ years ago. Today, the site gets code updates authored by many different people and its content is generated world-wide. I'm the closest thing to "owner" of the site, although I don't quite feel it that way.

Regarding that link in the footer, I also stated that "[the project is] a non-profit website driven by donations". The link in the footer is quite old and has nothing to do with revenues or the site itself - it's there just because I thought it would be convenient for astronomy enthusiasts, specially those just starting in the hobby which can't afford to pay the pricey equipment this hobby requires. If we wanted to profit from the site we'd add more visible ads, not a tiny link in the footer :) Thanks. Sebagr (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks for explaining. To formalize this disclosure, which should wrap up the COI management process (assuming that things reach consensus at WT:AST), would you please add a disclosure to your Userpage here: User:Sebagr (a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Userpages are for telling other Wikipedians things that are relevant to your work here. (See WP:Userpage for more guidance, if you like) Something simple like: "I am interested in astronomy, and I own the domain for dso-browser.com, a site that helps amateur astronomers find Deep Sky Objects." would be great. Then your COI with regard to that site will be formally disclosed, and this matter will be wrapped up. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC) (redacted, too much leash Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

@Jytdog: Sure thing, done :) BTW, do I need to ping you so you know I replied, or are you somehow notified automatically? Sebagr (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw that you did it, as your Talk page is on my watchlist now. Please pardon, but I took the liberty of editing your user page to make the COI disclosure simple, and to separate your general interests from your COI disclosure. I did that in these 2 diffs. Please do not use your userpage to promote your website - the purpose of mentioning it is simply and purely to inform other Wikipedia editors that you have a COI with regard to that domain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't mean to promote it - I doubt many people will check my user page. I just wanted to state what the site is about. In any case, if you are happy with the current version, I'm happy too. So, does this wrap this discussion and leave us waiting for consensus in WT:AST? Sebagr (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, thanks! (btw experienced Wikipedians check other people's userpages all the time, when they encounter someone they haven't interacted with before - that, and the person's contribs and Talk page, to get a sense of how the person works here) Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)