Professor Asia
Articles edit
Hello, you are not supposed to post your own articles, presented as a fundamental contribution, particularly that they are not cited and are in obscure journals. There is a WP:COI. Thanks.
They (Peer reviewed journal articles- I wrote or co-wrote) add to the body of knowledge and have been cited in other publications and are not obscure journals, they are international journals recognized by various major academic databases such as EBSCO, Proquest, Google Scholar and more. You may want to review this again.
- Check WP:COI Limit-theorem (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I am blocked indefinitely for the following "You are not supposed to post your own articles, presented as a fundamental contribution, particularly that they are not cited and are in obscure journals. There is a WP:COI."
There are several issues with your comments. First, User: Limit Theorem, outed me and used my name and other information which is a clear violation of Wikipedia Outing guidelines. Second, you blocked me on the basis I used the citations and information added to the articles and that is a violation of the COI policy. However, it is not. Lets review...... " Citing yourself Shortcut WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." Source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest>
It allows for me to cite and discuss if it is relevant and conforms to content policy which it did in all cases.
Last, you mentioned they are in vanity journals. Again, these are journals with years of history, peer reviewed with an established editorial board, ISSN, listed on multiple academic databases such as Google Scholar, EBSCO, Proquest, Cabel and others.
Again I do not understand what the issue is or why I would be blocked.
Professor Asia (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Professor Asia, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Professor Asia! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 15:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
Notice edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Limit-theorem (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)They (Peer reviewed journal articles- I wrote or co-wrote) add to the body of knowledge and have been cited in other publications and are not obscure journals, they are international journals recognized by various major academic databases such as EBSCO, Proquest, Google Scholar and more. You may want to review this again.
- Check WP:COI Limit-theorem (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock| I am blocked indefinitely for the following "You are not supposed to post your own articles, presented as a fundamental contribution, particularly that they are not cited and are in obscure journals. There is a WP:COI."
Professor Asia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There are several issues with your comments. First, User: Limit Theorem, outed me and used my name and other information which is a clear violation of Wikipedia Outing guidelines. Second, you blocked me on the basis I used the citations and information added to the articles and that is a violation of the COI policy. However, it is not. Lets review...... " Citing yourself Shortcut WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." Source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest> It allows for me to cite and discuss if it is relevant and conforms to content policy which it did in all cases. Last, you mentioned they are in vanity journals. Again, these are journals with years of history, peer reviewed with an established editorial board, ISSN, listed on multiple academic databases such as Google Scholar, EBSCO, Proquest, Cabel and others. The H score alone on one journal is 9 where the average is 5 for business journals. Regarding the brief additions to the 2 pages involving me personally in Village of Cary and Ambassador at Large sites... I reviewed the Advertising and Self Promotional provisions and again do not see where I violated policy. See below "4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. 5. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." Source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_YOU> I only listed my name as an Ambassador at Large for the Republic of Guinea, this is neutral and fact and not promotional in a commercial or political sense and is not an endorsement or advertisement. My mention on the Village of Cary website is true as well as I am a former Village Trustee and now an Ambassador and author and sources my involvement with the Village Board with an article. I did not violate the standard based on what is written as policy. Again I do not understand what the issue is or why I would be blocked. Please unblock me.
Decline reason:
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article. A citation is used to verify the statement against which it is placed, not just to link to something related, and yours do not seem to be doing that. For example, in this one, I don't see how the cited source verifies the statement "An indexed annuity (the word equity previously tied to indexed annuities has been removed to help prevent the assumption of stock market investing being present in these products) in the United States is a type of tax-deferred annuity whose credited interest is linked to an equity index — typically the S&P 500 or international index." Then we have this one, which looks simply like trying to lead the reader away from Wikipedia and to your source. In Wikipedia, we do not do content like "To learn xxxx, see yyy". Similarly this - A Wikipedia article should explain things and perhaps links to other Wikipedia articles, with external sources used as citations and not in place of actual content. And then this just adds a link as the first thing in an article, not supporting or verifying any specific content as citations are supposed to. I'm sorry, but all I see here is an attempt to publicize the work of Geoffrey VanderPal and not an attempt to help us build the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2018 (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.
Professor Asia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Professor Asia (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee In response.... I was not aware of a prohibition regarding links. I saw some other pages with links and I assumed it was permissible, I did not see any policy prohibiting this. So please share that policy if you can. I thought adding links to the actual research article was more credible. I did not know that it could only be cited. This idea of self promotion concerns me a bit. I wrote and published research articles in my field of expertise so of course I can and should use them where appropriate to add to the body of knowledge. This does NOT violate the COI policy and it does permit for me to do this. If I am a subject matter expert in this area and published, would it not stand to reason that I may have an article or two that would be cited or used? You mentioned the Equity Index Annuity comment about leaving out Equity. I am an expert in this area and the peer reviewed journal article I cited and used I am a co-author and it was a significant article in that we used actual Index annuity data, the first of research articles published to use actual data. BTW, The term of the art is either Index Annuity or Equity Index Annuity. I was not hiding anything. In fact they are considered Fixed annuities under all US states insurance laws and regarded by the industry as both Index annuity or Equity Index annuities. Some Index annuities have non-equity indices used which then is not an equity index. I think the citation as the first of a sentence may have been an error on my part. My apologies for that. I do not think that was intended and I understand the point regarding that. I am asking again for reconsideration. Thank you. Professor Asia (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have checked every one of your edits, and it is perfectly clear that your purpose here is to use Wikipedia to publicise yourself and your work. You do not acknowledge that, and nothing you say suggests either that you understand that doing so is contrary to Wikipedia policy or that you will not continue to do so. You also still do not seem to understand the point of citations in Wikipedia, despite the point having been explained to you. Those facts being so, I do not see any reason to believe that unblocking you would benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2018 (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.
Someone else will review your latest unblock, but I still don't think you understand what a citation is for. It's explained in detail at WP:CITE (that's a link you can click), but I'll try to offer a summary explanation. We might use a citation something like this (it's a silly example just for illustration)...
- The Octohound is a dog that has eight legs, rather than the usual four.<ref>Details of citation</ref>
That citation would be to a reliable source that verifies that an Octohound is a dog with eight legs. It would not be to a survey of octohound ownership, or to a genetic analysis of the octohound, or anything that does not verify the simple fact it is being used to support - the only thing appropriate is a confirmation that the preceding sentence is correct. The point of the Indexed Annuity example is that the only citation that should accompany a definition of the term "Indexed Annuity" is citation to a reliable source that actually defines the thing, and not an "empirical exploration of fixed indexed annuity (FIA) returns based on actual contracts that were sold and actual interest that was credited". (Having said that, citations are not actually required in the lead of an article, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and the citations should be in the body of the article). Does that help you understand? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the details. As I said, the citation if placed on the first sentence may have been an error. I am aware of citing since I write academic peer reviewed research journal articles and use APA and MLA formats and citations. I was referencing and using the article as additional information further into the Wikipedia page article. I had added about a paragraph of information, but now I am wondering if that was removed by the editor and you did not see it, and that may be why your just seeing an errant citation, and coming to this conclusion. Thank you for sharing the information. Professor Asia (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Your unblock request is outstanding. An administrator will look at, and until then, you'll just have to wait. Don't add additional unblock requests or, as in the last instance, a block notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I received your email of a few days ago (and sorry for not responding sooner). If you have anything else you want to say, just post it here on this talk page, and another admin will review your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Professor Asia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been accused of self promotion and COI issue with my posts. I have reviewed the policies and do not see where I have violated them. Yet 2 Administrators claim I do not understand and I refuse to understand. I plead my case with evidence and have asked in return for the denial to be backed with the specific policy area and how I specifically violated the policy so I do not make the same mistake. So far, other than a general accusation no one has shown where I specifically violated the COI or Self Promotion or any other policy with Wikipedia. So unless you can give me the specifics of exactly how, including which edits, and which specific area of a policy I violated then again your are making a broad generalization and without merit. Citation Spamming Policy, "Citation spam Shortcuts WP:REFSPAM WP:CITESPAM Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work, and people replacing good or dead URLs with links to commercial sites or their own blogs.'Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." In referring to the policy, the reference I added from peer reviewed journal(s) in the 2 cases I authored or co-authored follow being a good-faith addition intended to verify article content and help add to the body of knowledge. There is no commercial purpose. There are no false links or dead links. The citation or article material added were not the same article in multiple pages and were regarding the specific topic being utilized and discussed on Wikipedia. I am a subject matter expert in the topic I contributed too and cited several articles I authored in Journals in appropriate pages or areas. Example: If Professor William Sharpe, whom the Sharpe ratio was named or was a major contributor to Capital Asset Pricing Model added material including a citation to his work or made edits about his work you would ban him from Wikipedia? Never mind he is a famous academic. We are focusing strictly on the Wikipedia rules here. I am learning the process and realized I should have posted details on the Talk page of each area I added so the context and reason for the addition was known. I would like another administrator to review this. ÷ Thank you. Professor Asia (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Having reviewed all of your edits to articles, it is apparent that your edits are a clear conflict of interest. The first line of the COI policy is "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships"; you are clearly doing this by posting information based on your own writings to articles. I understand that you are an expert in your field, but that doesn't mean you can post your own findings and information to articles. I agree with JamesBWatson above that you don't seem to see what is wrong with what you have done and don't indicate that you intend to stop or change your ways. As such, I agree that there is no benefit to the project in unblocking you, and I am declining your request. I would think long and hard before making another unblock request, and if it is not substantially different from your three previous ones, you risk losing the ability to edit this page. My personal opinion is that your only pathway to an unblock would involve agreeing to not edit articles related to your field, at least without discussion on the relevant talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2018 (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.
While you can remove other posts from this page, you cannot remove declined unblock requests while you are blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)