User talk:Y-M

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Y-M, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! GermanJoe (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge management[edit]

The fact that an article has been peer reviewed does not mean it is notable enough to include in an article. Also inserting your own material is frowned on as it creates a conflict of interest -----Snowded TALK 15:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y-M, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Y-M! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You are doing what is known as Wikipedia:Edit warring, in the articles computer security and knowledge management. Disruption of Wikipedia articles through repeated reversions, particularly when you have a conflict of interest (as you are trying to insert links to your own works) isn't tolerated, and will result in your account being blocked if you persist in this activity. Please use the article talk pages to resolve content disputes. Especially when you have a conflict of interest, you must use the talk pages to propose edits for others to review, rather than make the change yourself in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Anachronist, thank you for your specific feedback that explicitly points out the issue as "trying to insert links to your own works". Should this specific feedback be interpreted as that one should not insert links to the WWW Virtual Library project which is maintained by volunteer editors as a public service.Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Anachronist, thank you for your specific feedback that explicitly points out the issue as "trying to insert links to your own works". Should this specific feedback be interpreted as that one should not insert links to one's own work, and, the specific new statement needs to be posted with those specific links removed.
You are also breaking another rule which is not to insult other editors just because you disagree with them. You need to read up on the conflict of interest policy which applies here and includes the self-citation issue to which another editor has referred you. In your edit summary on knowledge management you also made two errors. Firstly you claimed you were more qualified to edit that others, secondly you referenced the Brint web site with which you have a direct interest. In wikipedia a tenured professor has the same status and is subject to the same rules as a high school student. What matters is the use of reliable third party sources. If you feel your own material is notable then find a third party reference which says it is and make an edit request on the talk page of the article itself - you should not edit an article directly to insert your own material. You have now been formally warned about edit warring as well as the COI policy so persistence in this behaviour will result in a report and possible block. -----Snowded TALK 05:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Snowded. Should your feedback be interpreted as follows: eliminating all references to servers that host the specific subject focused WWW Virtual Library which is part of The WWW Virtual Library project will result in the compliance of the new statement to Wikipedia criteria? Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Snowded for the specific and meaningful feedback that you have issue with the posting of the link to WWW Virtual Library on Knowledge Management which is part of The WWW Virtual Library project. Should your feedback be interpreted as follows: eliminating all references to servers that host the WWW Virtual Library on Knowledge Management which is part of The WWW Virtual Library project will result in the compliance of the new statement to Wikipedia criteria?
Its not a matter of the servers - as far as I can see those are your sites and a library which you founded. That mean you have a conflict of interest and should not propose material from it. Proposing your own articles is also bad form and would require you to make a case on the talk page. That case would require third party source as to notability - which is not the same thing as one of your articles being peer reviewed. There is a lot of peer reviewed material in this field and citations are likely to be to leaders of schools of thought or exemplars of those schools. That or articles with high citations linked to key concepts in the body of the text -----Snowded TALK 15:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Snowded for your latest feedback, please advise if the following one statement with the two related citations attributed to global community of researchers published in there complies with Wikipedia critera. Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two research monographs published by a global virtual community of practice of academic and applied research scientists added focus of Knowledge Management on Virtual Organizations and Business Model Innovation.Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Snowded for your latest feedback, please advise if the following one statement with the two related citations attributed to global community of researchers published in there complies with Wikipedia critera. Thank you so much for your guidance in helping me understand the specific criteria.
Two research monographs published by a global virtual community of practice of academic and applied research scientists added focus of Knowledge Management on Virtual Organizations and Business Model Innovation. [with the two respective peer-reviewed 'not self-published' references Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations (2000), and, Knowledge Management and Business Model Innovation (2001) listed in the bibliography.].
Lots of material would pass that test - why is it notable in an encyclopaedia article? Are you making a claim based on the papers themselves? If so that would be original research. If that paper is referenced by other authors as significant (not reviewed) then have you evidence of that? Go back to your original change to the article. It started "In 2000, Y-M, the founding editor and publisher of the WWW Virtual Library on Knowledge Management ..." and went on to list two papers. There is absolutely nothing notable about your publishing two papers, nor is your status in anyway relevant to the subject. Why are those papers significant? If there is something then they might be supporting references for it. As it stands it looks like self-promotion -----Snowded TALK 18:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have misinterpreted that the two publications are individually authored papers, they are not. The two publications are edited research monographs, i.e., multi-authored books containing double-blind peer reviewed articles reviewed and published by 200 worldwide PhD applied and academic research scientists.Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two research monographs are books containing double-blind peer reviewed articles published by worldwide PhD applied and academic research scientists and are the product of research contributed and peer reviewed by 200 worldwide PhD applied and academic research scientists containing refereed articles authored by many of those researchers using multiple blind-reviewed academic review process typically used for top-tier research journals.
All well and good, but very similar things can be said about many other authors and papers. What makes this notable for an encyclopaedia? Are you arguing that helping companies to understand why systems fail is notable? We don't list contributors to the field, we summarise the field with references -----Snowded TALK 20:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon interpretation of prior Wikipedia editors' feedback, I am listing third-party references such as the committee of senior academics who wrote the specific scientific impact report for what they noted about the specific body of work in terms of its notability. It is the opinion of that committee of scientists, not mine.Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I am doing is submitting the "self-evident" facts for one and all to see without making any argument or stating any speculative opinion whatsover.

That is not how wikipedia works I'm afraid. I recommend you spend some time editing articles in which you do not have a direct interest. Its the best way to learn and its a fascinating way to understand complex knowledge systems (my field). Wikipedia is governed by behavioural standards, no authority arbitrates content. Its not a journal. You have been reverted by three experienced editors and ones with knowledge of this field. That should tell you something. If you still disagree make a specific proposal on the talk page and then set up a RFC if you can't get agreement -----Snowded TALK 21:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me understand how Wikipedia works. I am trying to understand how to interpret prior feedback of Wikipedia editors on this issue about sharing objective, unbiased, third-party references such as scientific reports of impact for work being submitted for citation having followed prior feedback about removing the specific hyperlinks.Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for more evidence by raising a rhetorical question, do you want me to submit more "self-evident" facts such as I have served as a referee for hundreds of articles for world-leading journals and conference proceedings in addition to 32 national expert panels of the National Science Foundation?
Respnding to your previous comment: You aren't getting the message. Wikipedia makes no claim to be a reliable source of data; you may have noticed that Wikipedia articles never cite Wikipedia as a source. The only objective fact, according to Wikipedia's review process, is that you attempted to insert self-serving statements into two articles, citing yourself, in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines about conflict of interest. The conflict of interest, as well as the dubious informational value of those statements, caused them to be removed by reviewers. It's really that simple. If you want to propose text and citations with which you have a conflict of interest, you must do so on the talk page. You haven't yet done so. That is our review process, and you haven't even attempted to follow it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback Anachronist to propose text and citations on the the talk page. As you may observe, I have done so above, i.e., proposed text and citations on the the talk page above and would welcome your response to those:
Two research monographs published by a global virtual community of practice of academic and applied research scientists added focus of Knowledge Management on Virtual Organizations and Business Model Innovation. Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Anachronist: with reference to your observation, the revision that doesn't deem to have CoI was submitted as noted above and it was completely ignored in the response to that review as the record shows.
Two research monographs published by a global virtual community of practice of academic and applied research scientists added focus of Knowledge Management on Virtual Organizations and Business Model Innovation. [with the two respective peer-reviewed 'not self-published' references Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations (2000), and, Knowledge Management and Business Model Innovation (2001) listed in the bibliography.]
I've sat on NSF and EPSRC panels as well and I've written and refereed many an article; so have many other editors. You need to get over any idea that you have some special status here . You don't. Sorry you need to get on board with the way Wikipedia works or simply give up on it, Trying to insert your own material is a clear conflict of interest and just a little arrogant. I suggested you edit other wikipedia articles to learn how things work around here. And for the record, I strongly recommend you don't make statements about other editors as you did here. Even if your allegations were right (which they are not my the way, lots of us have citations and awards) it is completely irrelevant to wikipedia. -----Snowded TALK 21:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Who you are gives you no special status. -----Snowded TALK 21:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback Snowded. Having followed your and other Wikipedia editors' prior feedback about removing the respective hyperlinks to the specific non-commercial historical archive of the WWW Virtual Library project which like all other WWW Virtual Library projects is maintained as a volunteer for public service, and, also removing the references to the specific edited monographs' editor name, I am trying to find the best way to cite those research monographs that contain the contributions of 200 worldwide subject experts on Knowledge Management who contributed and published their articles through a 'double-blind' referee review process.Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one asked for any special status: what is expected though is due process that isn't presumptuous and doesn't border on intimidation of the submitter in every step.
You expressed interest in a review process above. I succinctly explained what you must do in my initial statement at the top of this section. Why, then, are you not following it? Why are you not proposing specific changes on the talk pages of the articles you attempted to edit? And no, I would not find Snowded's statements to be presumptuous and insulting, had they been directed at me, but that's probably because I am familiar with how things work on Wikipedia. Snowded gave standard advice given to any new editor who has demonstrated a conflict of interest. Had I attempted to cite my own publications in a Wikipedia article, I would deserve and expect similar advice from other editors. The correct procedure is to propose specific text and citations on the article talk page, which you have not done in spite of the huge amount of text written above. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Anachronist. FYI: With reference to your observation, the revision that doesn't deem to have CoI was submitted as noted above and is reproduced below:
Two edited books published by a global virtual community of practice of academic and applied research scientists added focus of Knowledge Management on Virtual Organizations and Business Model Innovation.
[with the two respective peer-reviewed 'not self-published' books: Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations (2000), and, Knowledge Management and Business Model Innovation (2001) listed in the bibliography. More information on the two books: https://books.google.com/books/about/Knowledge_Management_and_Virtual_Organiz.html?id=jVRReLsAnikC, https://books.google.com/books?id=nAccO2bjrxwC]
Thank you Anachronist. With reference to your observation, I have followed all prior feedback offered in prior Wikipedia editor responses such as removing links to the WWW Virtual Library Project of which the global community of practice including the 200 authors and reviewers of the two research monographs were a subset, eliminating the name of the WWW Virtual Library Project, and, eliminating the name of the editor of the research monographs to produce the revised version on the talk page as you advised.:
Two edited research monographs reviewed and published by a global virtual community of 200 academic and applied research scientists added focus of Knowledge Management on Virtual Organizations and Business Model Innovation. Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are the author of those books. Therefore, the claim that the revision "doesn't deem to have CoI" is impossible. You cited your own books. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback Anachronist. As noted above, these are references to multi-authored research monographs containing research articles authored and reviewed by 200 worldwide subject matter experts on Knowledge Management and not to an individually authored paper or book.Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist, having shaped worldwide policy-making and practices in those two areas, namely Virtual Organizations and Business Model Innovation related to Knowledge Management, and, having advanced beyond to other areas of worldwide policy-making and practices over last 25 years, the concern is more about the ‘public interest’ that those reading this Wikipedia page will miss out on the most potent applications of Knowledge Management that have already shaped the world for last 25 years. Having said so, I rest my case.
You've been given the same advice by several experienced editors. You don't like it, fine. Propose an edit on the talk page. If it is anything like the ones you made it will be rejected, You can then call a RfC, again, arguing from experience you will be rejected. But if you want to try it feel free. You have a COI in respect of your own material and there is a clear process for that which we are all subject to, This is a community of equals and you have no special status. Over and out -----Snowded TALK 22:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback Snowded.Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere thank you to you Snowded for trying to help.
Thank you for distinguishing notability from scientific authority.Y-M (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for distinguishing "notability" as earlier referred from GermanJoe from [scientific and industrial research] "authority".
  • Don't have a lot to add to the above valid points. If you'd like to suggest relevant subject-specific improvements based on your publications, please use the article talkpages (adding Template:edit request) - ideally without the hostile and defensive commentary from previous edit summaries. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Y-M&oldid=839486753"