User talk:JohnBoyerPhd

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JohnBoyerPhd. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Quicksort, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie,

I believe that the contribution I attempted to make is not a COI, so I'd like to ask if you could consider the following and withdraw your rejection of the content and instead help me with edit request I subsequently made.

The content I attempted to contribute is about the Quicksort not "about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Furthermore, for the papers I cited, I am not the publisher. The papers are reviewed by ACM referees, DDJ editors, or university professors, as the case may be and then published by those institutions, so they are not SPS.

Finally, I understand the requirements about disclosure about compensation for making the contribution, but that's simply not the case. I'm not being paid by anyone in any way to add this content, so I'd appreciate it if you removed that notice.

How would I go about getting you to lift the COI designation from the content so that it may be properly considered?

Also, despite my not believing I have a COI, I attempted to submit an edit request for the content to be considered. Another editor rejected it as SPS and NOR. As I mentioned above, the works cited are not SPS, nor is the content a violation of NOR. The content consists of statements that are not original but are drawn from externally published sources that are on the list of reliable sources. Can you help me get the proper consideration of those sources and the content in the edit request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBoyerPhd (talk • contribs)

You may not have published the papers, but you wrote them. And the text you added was literally about yourself "John Boyer proposed...". This is as clear cut a conflict of interest as I've ever seen on Wikipedia. As a subject matter expert, you are no doubt familiar with a wide range of work by many people. Why not help to build wikipedia by citing some other people's work? - MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I wrote them, so I'm the author, not the publisher. I filed the content under the COI guidelines, and it's been rejected for SPS and NOR. How would one correct that? Also, I'm attempting to build the _history_ section by putting in the earliest references that I know about. Far more recent occurrences of linked list quick sorting are now available on the web, such as through stack exchange, but they don't contribute to the history. I can add references to them anyway in an additional sentence, as it lends further credence to the fact that people are interested in the topic. That being said, I'm not seeing the part of wikipedia that categorically forbids editors such as yourself from reviewing content like mine that are from reputable sources and then accepting it. To the extent that the COI edit request *is* for cases like you believe this is, can you help with getting the content in place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBoyerPhd (talk • contribs)

Without independent references to provide context, I don't actually think that content should be in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie, Thanks for that advice, I know how to proceed now. JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actions Supported by Wikipedia Process

Hi @MrOllie:

I noted another change of mine that you reverted recently. While I appreciate that you want to eliminate violations of process, I am concerned that you are being too restrictive, to the point of reverting content that it is in fact permissible to add. You reverted the text based on COI and undue emphasis. The language of the editing rules here makes it clear that a self-citation can in fact be added by the author if it is relevant, not excessive, not a self pub, doesn't place undue emphasis, and preferably doesn't add multiple self citations without adding any other references. I added a single 52 word sentence to an article of approximately 10,000 words, supporting it with a single externally published citation. Adding 0.5% content via a single sentence is not undue emphasis, and one sentence does not require support of multiple sources. The COI rules go on to say "You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work." Hence, it is quite clear that the rules support my addition of that content, and reverting it on the basis of COI rules isn't aligned with the statements that the COI rules actually make. Can you please restore the content? Or in the spirit of the Wikipedia negotiation process, you could instead revert it and then move it to the very end of Section 2.6 Divisibility by 7 in a little subsection that addresses the "Relative Complexity of Methods for Divisibility by 7".

Thank you, JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archiving

The talk page will be automatically archived when additional sections are added - the archiver program keeps a minimum (5) number of threads on the talk page. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, you should not simply delete the section. - MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]