# User talk:Peteymills

Welcome! Hello, Peteymills, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

## File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Wv cadv ecmwf small.gif

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

## TeX, etc.

Hello. Please notice my recent edits to isoline retrieval. TeX is fairly sophisticated. You shouldn't write

\underset{j}{\max} P

which comes out looking like this:

$\underset{j}{\max} P \,$

when you can just write \max_j P, which looks like this:

$\max_j P \,$

The latter form has proper spacing between "max" and "P" whereas the former does not. Putting the backslash in \max makes TeX follow standard formatting conventions (including putting the subscript under "max", so "underset" is not needed, and proper spacing before and after "max"). Similarly "cases" gives better results more simply than the "array" environment you used.

Also, one shouldn't italicize digits, parentheses, etc. in expressions like p0. See WP:MOSMATH. This matches TeX style. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, instead of \underset {\epsilon \rightarrow 0} {\lim}, one should write

\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}

which looks like this:

$\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \,$

This also results in proper spacing between this expression and the ones before and after it. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

## Peteymills/collocation (remote sensing)

Hi,

It looks like you were trying to create a user page when you created the above page, I have moved it to User:Peteymills/collocation (remote sensing) for you. Codf1977 (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

## Image tagging for File:Asi-n6250-20100102-v5 visual.png

Thanks for uploading File:Asi-n6250-20100102-v5 visual.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

## File source problem with File:Brine volume.gif

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

## File:Eick svsd.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eick svsd.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Optimal estimation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Matrix and Inverse method (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

## Chaotic mixing

Dear Peter Mills,

I'm a physicist working on fluid mixing. With a team of graduate students to whom I teach fluid mixing, I'm planning to complement next week (on February 3rd 2012) the page that you started about chaotic mixing. We would be very pleased if you had the time to review our changes after we work on the page. EmmanuelleGouillart (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Column density (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
Differential absorption spectroscopy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
Atmospheric sounding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
Polarization mixing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Vector radiative transfer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scalar and Vector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

## File permission problem with File:Asi-n6250-20100102-v5 visual.png

Thanks for uploading File:Asi-n6250-20100102-v5 visual.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

## Ways to improve Forecast verification

Hi, I'm Sfan00 IMG. Peteymills, thanks for creating Forecast verification!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The current version of the article reads more like a textbook introduction than a technical article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

## Proposed deletion of Sea ice emissivity modelling

The article Sea ice emissivity modelling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Self published (COI), to much synopsis.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. prokaryotes (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is my response:
When I write an article in my field that strongly references my own work it is unambiguously a conflict of interest. However, it is my belief that in scientific fields, this should be tolerated and I will present several arguments.
The goal of science is to discern objective facts. Thus, the neutral point of view is built in right from the beginning. How much this is achievable in practice is debatable: few philosophers believe that true objectivity is possible. My job as a scientist is not only to advance the state-of-the-art, but to improve existing work, thus in writing an article it would make sense to reference my own work: should I not have confidence in my own abilities, that I have done a good job? Or, who would be more qualified to write about these topics than someone who specializes in the field and who has worked in the field for many years?
Indeed, when I first started working on sea ice remote sensing, it was apparent that there were many issues in emissivity modelling and my first task was to clarify them. The Wikipedia article, "Sea ice emissivity modelling," represents a large portion of that work. There is little of my own original thought in it although it references two of my own papers. Rather it unifies and summarizes much of what came before. The figure which you have removed comes from one of my (peer-reviewed) papers and accurately diagrams the majority of microwave sea ice emissivity models used up to this point.
Which brings me to my second point: the second part of my job as a scientist is to disseminate my findings and knowledge amongst the general public. I can't think of a better platform for doing this than Wikipedia. Perhaps it is arrogance, but I consider this a vital public service. There is a great deal of interest in issues like climate change of which sea ice is a valuable marker. It is important that even ordinary people can learn how the science is actully done: articles like this, by dealing with the more "nitty gritty," as opposed to the lighter surface treatment, which to my eye looks more like spin, make climate science more accessible.
I am not hiding anything. Anybody who cares to check will find that, yes, the same author who wrote this article and many others has also referenced a lot of his own work. And I won't lie either: Wikipedia is an important tool for promoting my work. Unfortunately, the harsh reality of science today is that you cannot survive without promoting your work. The h-index is a common measure of a scientist's output. It is also unambiguously a measure of popularity, much as you might find on a social media or dating site.
So in this case, it's hard to argue conflict-of-interest. In science, promotion and dissemination go hand-in-hand and disseminating your work is one of the twin responsibilities of a scientist. The question is not whether I am referencing my own work, but whether that work is relevant and of high-quality to begin with.
Peteymills (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many issues with the page content (poor referencing, out of date data, or to much synopsis). however without going into more detail, please read WP:ORIGINAL and WP:CONFLICT prokaryotes (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The article has many references and generous inline citations. I'm not sure what you mean by "too much synopsis." Isn't synopsis the whole point of an Encyclopedia? I'm also not sure what you mean by out of date data: most of the article deals with physical principles and their application to physical models, not data. I have read the guidelines for original content and conflict-of-interest since it was just as relevant when I first started adding content. I do not believe the article crosses any of these boundaries. Peteymills (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The correct place for the entire context is here. Related. prokaryotes (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not correct. Microwave radiometry can detect more than just ice concentration. As we speak, new algorithms are being developed to retrieve sea ice thickness from microwave radiometry (e.g. Huntemann, M. , Heygster, G. , Kaleschke, L. , Krumpen, T. , Mäkynen, M. and Drusch, M. (2014): Empirical sea ice thickness retrieval during the freeze up period from SMOS high incident angle observations , The Cryosphere, 8 (2), pp. 439-451). It can also be used to detect snow thickness and other variables.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (talk page stalker) Gawd I so wish people - like climate denialists - would READ their RSs before they cite them; I suspect Prokaryotes‎ (talk · contribs) can relate to that feeling. On the other hand, I wish people would READ their wikipedia rules before they cite them. Taken straight from WP:COI (the pinpoint shortcut is WP:EXTERNALREL) " But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." See also Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors.

Meanwhile, a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Petey. I see from your list of contribs that you've been around awhile, but I couldn't tell if you have been through procedural wringers yet. You are always welcome to stop by my talk page if you're looking for wikipedia advice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is serious science, then we should keep it. However, we shouldn't past all kinds of formulas and snippets containing details in various articles. (here, or here (to much synopsis) or here) Focus on one article and then link to it and use on other articles just a brief outline of this postulated method. So we need one article with the formulas and a broad outline and then link from the related pages to it. Further is the Sea ice emissivity modelling section "Radiative transfer modelling", only referenced by a paper located on a private webspace, and appears to be from 2011. 1.) How relevant are these calculations for today's state of science? 2.) Update Ref to the Cryosphere journal, and or other peer-reviewed journal publications. It would be nice to have microwave imaginary or some infrared showing the sea ice emissivity. Related, Google Scholar (since 2013). Thus, the article should draw from other studies too, use latest studies and reference them probably. prokaryotes (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't plan on doing any editing at the article, personally. For one thing, I would need to read several of the cited RSs and then read some others on topic (even though they weren't cited) before I felt competent to render an opinion about it being "serious science". Further critique belongs either at AFD or the article talk page, P. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The paper referenced for RT modelling is from an IEEE journal, a highly respected scientific publisher. Again, if you think the article needs more material or needs to be improved, then improve it. See also my comments at the sea ice emissivity talk page. Be a builder, not a destroyer. It is very easy to add your own material while leaving what I've already created still largely intact. This is what was done with the chaotic mixing page. A scientist said she was interested in working on the page along with a couple of students and asked me for feedback. The changes were made and I noticed that there was some duplication so worked on integrating the material better. The result, I think, was an article that was much better than something either of us alone could have produced.Peteymills (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2014 (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. prokaryotes (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## Starving scientists

Yo, I know the starving scientist thing all too well. Not that many jobs these days. Still, using wikipedia edits to solicit money is lame-o extrem-o. Volunteer here, or don't volunteer here. If you want to solicit donations, start your own blog and do it there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia solicits donations. Why should its editors not also? To suggest otherwise is hypocritical. If these attacks continue I am going to implement a very simple solution: enforce my copyright claims and remove anything and everything I've written here and revert any attempt to reinstate articles or pieces of articles containing content I've written. I don't deserve this. As I've said already: I work hard at my craft. It's difficult enough trying to make it as an independent scientist. I deserve some compensation.
Works for me. See WP:DIVA NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Peteymills, please focus and do not consider every input an attack. We all try to make Wikipedia better and sometimes personal opinion or views need to be compromised in order to find a common ground. In particular this could mean that we merge articles and or extend content you submitted previously. It could also mean that some content additions from you are just fine. However, i kindly ask you to stay open minded with any kind of critic, but this only works if you do not start to threaten legal actions or anything else of this kind of behavior, thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You have no copyright claims. Everything you've submitted to Wikipedia, you've released all copyrights. Note that every time you make an edit to any page, your editing page says the following:
By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.
So you have no grounds to claim copyright, you've given them up. You don't deserve any more compensation than any other editor on Wikipedia. I've made thousands of contributions to article space and non-article space in efforts to help improve this place and I've never expected a dime for it, nor do the countless other volunteers here at this site. If your motivation for editing this site is compensation, you don't belong here. -- Atama 17:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe the law is all that clear in this matter. I wrote it, it's mine and I don't appreciate people taking advantage of my work by preventing me from seeking compensation for it. Like I said, I don't run off of air. I never said I deserve nor expect "more compensation." I just think I should be allowed to ask for it. As I've said already three times: Wikipedia is not run for free. They solicit donations regularly. To think that it is not the exact same case for the individual editors is hypocritical. Peteymills (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, as an administrator I'm obligated to enforce the guidelines and policies, and I do so willingly because they are based on consensus by editors at this project, and by the WMF that created and governs this project. And because I believe they are fair and correct. You essentially want special treatment, you're not going to receive it. -- Atama 17:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, note that myself and NewsAndEventsGuy were defending your contributions and the potential validity of your self-referencing in articles, and you've managed to change both of our minds through your actions. I've been working with COI editors for many years and this is the first time I've ever seen a person expect that they should be able to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for monetary solicitation as compensation for their volunteerism. -- Atama 17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that while I don't think too highly of the process that got us here, I'm glad actions by Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) brought the more important matter to light. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Which guidelines? If there are such guidelines (and I'm not convinced there are) then they should be changed because they are unfair and inconsistent.Peteymills (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
First full paragraph at WP:COI reads (bold in original)
"'* * * COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests * * * when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
Since you say you are going to leave if you can't ask for money, you have proved that asking for money is more important to you than improving our articles. Case closed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" That assumes the two are in conflict. They are not. In my original essay on the topic of conflict of interest, I explained that: I work as a scientist. Neutral-point-of-view is built in right from the start. My getting donations does not conflict with the goals of Wikipedia, it advances them. If I cannot work because I'm starving, how does that help Wikipedia? Unless you assume that any donation I get is one less for Wikipedia, but I don't believe that's the case since the work I do is not the same in scope.
Aside from the occasional request for donations that Wikipedia will have (and I think pledge drives are only done once a year for brief periods of time, and those banners can be hidden with a single click) this site strives to be advertisement-free. Anyone that abuses this site for advertising purposes for whatever reason (whether they're selling a product, trying to get personal donations, or even collecting money for a worthy charity) it harms the site. Because if we allow exceptions for you, we have to allow exceptions for everyone. Imagine the result... Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the entire internet, and receives massive amounts of traffic. As the site that "anyone can edit", that means that people could use this site for free to reach countless people to gather customers and/or collect donations. If we give people the ability to do that, the site would be overwhelmed. As it is, it's a continual struggle to keep that off of Wikipedia. By using this site for solicitation you are part of that problem. The site has a hard enough time maintaining trust and integrity, it would lose it completely if it allowed efforts such as what you're trying to do. -- Atama 18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

e/c Hmmmm..... If it is OK for Kock Brothers to hire someone to come here to edit, then it should be OK for editors to hold their hat out so Koch Brothers can fill it. And of course, once that ice breaks then everyone under the sun will ask for money for editing wikipedia. So what about those Koch Brothers? It seems the foundation might be getting ready to speak on the matter. Personally I think no one should be allowed to edit for hire. But if the foundation allows the Kochs to pay someone, it will be hard to see a logical distinction between that and Peteymills' opt-in panhandling. In fact, it will be race between me and everyone else to also put out our own koffers. "Talent goes where the money is". That would be a very large rock in the Wikipedia pond. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Peteymills (talk · contribs), Prokaryotes (talk · contribs), and atama (talk · contribs), please see bold edit #1 in the WP:BRD cycle at WP:PANHANDLE. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC) PS Sorry, I should have made it clear that the entire section was just added by me, a moment ago. It's brand new. We'll see if it "sticks". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Does this apply equally to articles as it does to user pages? Because it seems to me that there should be a lot more leeway as to what is allowed in a user page than in an article. This is, after all, my personal page, at least as it relates to Wikipedia. As such, it should represent me. If I am an independent researcher and survive on donations alone, it makes a lot of sense for there to be a donation button. I am not selling anything here: I am already engaged in a public service. I guess it's very much a communist viewpoint: if I already had a salary, I wouldn't ask for donations. But I don't. So I'm hoping that someone steps up and provides me with one.
As for this "represent the interests of Wikipedia" this is nonsense. Unless I get something out of it in the bargain, why should I bother editing Wikipedia? In my case, I work on Wikipedia because many of its goals are in line with my own for how science should be practiced and disseminated.
Honestly, you remove the links in Wikipedia, there goes 90% of the traffic to my website. Call it conflict-of-interest, call it advertising, call it whatever the fuck you like. Do you really want to do that to me? I've been working at this for a long, fucking time and I'm damn good at it. But the reality of the science world is, and I pointed this out in my first essay on the topic, if you want to gain traction in the world of science, you need to sell yourself. And if it's true for academic scientists, it goes double for an independent researcher trying to survive on donations. The h-index is through-and-through a popularity rating. It tells you sweet fuck all about the quality of someone's work, just that other people have referred to it. Yes, Wikipedia is the most valuable tool I have for promoting my work. If I can't promote my work, I can't survive as a scientist. And if I can't survive as a scientist, no more contributions to Wikipedia, because I only ever write about science. I certainly won't bother if I'm not actively involved in the field, and at this point, that is likely because even the small traction I've gained has been hard won and I have received exactly \$60 in donations up to this point.
With this most recent admission, it's pretty clear you're not here to contribute to Wikipedia as a volunteer. You are here to promote your work, and make money. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and with that I have to block you. This is quite possibly the clearest conflict of interest case I have seen in more than 5 years volunteering at the COI noticeboard. I have to thank you for being honest with us, but you'll have to find some other means to promote your work and raise funds for it. I do wish you luck in your endeavors, and I mean that sincerely, but Wikipedia cannot sponsor them. -- Atama 22:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Wherever you turn to market your professional skills next, try not to say "fuck" even once, much less three times in the same breath. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You are probably right. Look, you caught me at a bad time here as I suffer from dark moods so gave the flippant response instead of addressing this issue properly. I can be arrogant and abrasive even at the best of times.
The more I think about it, the more I realize there is no conflict of interest. My goals as an independent researcher are substantially the same as Wikipedia's. While I am trying to create and disseminate new knowledge, Wikipedia is about collating and disseminating existing knowledge. But new knowledge eventually gets added to the scientific cannon and so warrants inclusion. In addition, creating new knowledge is a slow process so much of my time is also spent collating existing knowledge as well as writing software that often merely implements existing techniques. It's also a fuzzy line between when a fact is new or simply a new way of presenting an existing fact. If I develop or present an equation in a new way, but the equation is already well known, is this original content? I tend to think not.
I really wish the whole idea of "objective" knowledge (or neutral-point-of-view: same thing) would finally die. There is true knowledge, but not objective knowledge. Quantum mechanics suggests that subjectivity is built right in to the laws of physics: when you observe something, it changes. Even if you reject that interpretation, when someone is writing about science, they are filtering the data through their own lens. They are telling a story: if I reference a lot of my own work, it is because only my own story is mine to tell. I need direct experience with a subject in order to obtain an understanding of it. I try to convey an understanding of the topic rather than producing an exhaustive survey.
The only things of my own I've linked to in articles, other than papers (which are also available from the publisher), are free software projects. This software is licensed under substantially the same terms as Wikipedia content itself. All the software does something (or everything) described in the article, so the most eager readers, if they want the same, direct experience that I crave, can get it by downloading and running the software or trying some of the examples. All this was done in good faith. I wrote the software, found it worked extremely well for my purposes, so released it to the general public. I think it is good software and I've worked hard in recent releases to make it more user friendly.
In summary, I don't think you should be asking, "is there a conflict of interest?" but rather, if these are true facts I've been presenting.Peteymills (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Peteymills, maybe try to extend your YouTube channel with some tutorials on the science. Just narrating would be enough i guess. prokaryotes (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
And I'm not "in it" for the money either. I work (including making contributions to Wikipedia) because I've a passion for science, because I want to share this passion with the world and because I want to develop a model for doing science that is more open, more inclusive and yes, more objective. I certainly wouldn't be continuing to work for free if I didn't. But the realities of this world are: will still live in a reward-based system and you need money to survive. Peteymills (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
More on COI: I use a lot of examples from my own work, especially for the figures. All the figures in the article on chaotic scattering are from my thesis work, although I do not reference my own (peer-reviewed) paper on the topic, just my thesis papers. Now why do you suppose that I use my own figures??Peteymills (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
For instance, the image/s at Sea ice emissivity modelling, are referenced to a report which you are one of the authors (without page numbers). ALso check the talk page there, a user recently made what i consider a constructive input. prokaryotes (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
That's correct. I can release the copyright if I own it. Are you asking for my input? I'm not much use at the moment.Peteymills (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it wasn't clear to me that you are blocked(since there is no user talk notification). I'm not sure but you may ask for re-assessment, that is if you change your position related to the blocking. prokaryotes (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Peteymills, there are procedures to request unblocking. If interested you might start by reading Wikipedia:Blocking policy. However, if you do seek to be unblocked, I think you would be wise to discuss your images and explain their copyright status. If there is even a whiff that any images you have posted to the wiki world are not in compliance with WP:COPYVIO and related guidelines, there's a reasonable chance an unblock request would be put in abeyance until that was rectified one way or another. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I apologize for not leaving a standard block notice here, though I did state above that you were blocked, it was indefinite, and the exact reason why. I'll correct that now, and leave the template as a formality. -- Atama 16:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

## Request to be unblocked

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason:

Intend to fill out unbalanced articles and make them more objective Peteymills (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.