User talk:NeatGrey
Welcome!
|
Just a note
[edit]Please make sure you have read WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Per WP:SOAPBOX, which is part of NOT) it is not OK to use Wikipedia to promote anything - not a drug (if you work for pharma company), not some political candidate, and not cyronics.
Please do also read WP:ADVOCACY, a helpful essay about advocacy in Wikipedia, as well as WP:SPA, which describes the community's experience with what we call "single purpose accounts", and please pay mind to outcomes there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
[edit]Hi NeatGrey. Along with my regular editing on health and medicine, I also work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. As I noted above, your edits to date are focused on cryonics. I discussed issues with what we call "advocacy" above; here I am giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use (all of which is a subset of the broader issue of advocacy), and will have some comments and requests for you below.
Hello, NeatGrey. 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. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:
- avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
- instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
- when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or 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 familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.
Comments and requests
[edit]Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).
Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with institutions or companies that sell cryonics services, or that advocate for cryonics? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hidden text in your talkpage
[edit]Hi NeatGrey (talk), re your complaint/discussion you posted on WP:ANI. FYI and BTW I noticed the following hidden text was put in your talkpage on 17:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC):
- "!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED IF THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. -- !-- Template:uw-coi --".
I have no idea whether this hidden warning is supposed to be standard practice applied to new editors talkpage's, an accusation of WP:COI, attempt to WP:BITE or something else. I believe you have the right to request that a particular editor stops posting on your talkpage, and/or that all communication ceases if an editor is offensive or bothersome (as I have exercised such). That's all I have to add. I am not familiar with the articles you've been editing and I have no opinion on such. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- 8 April: I removed the above mentioned COI hidden text from your talkpage. As it was agreed by all on AN/I that you have no COI and it seems a "Frivolous COI accusation" as was suggested, and no-one disputed this at AN/I. Thank you. Gongwool (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 21
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.
- CodeCombat
- added a link pointing to Y Combinator
- Rachel Haywire
- added a link pointing to TED
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unblock
[edit]You are unblocked following your emailed appeal to ArbCom; with apologies for the inconvenience. I have asked Jytdog to revert his edits in relation to you; they shouldn't have been made so easily in the first place. Bbb23, thanks, but the two accounts weren't used simultaneously or nefariously, and WP:CLEANSTART applies. NeatGrey, please follow the suggestions on that page. The first thing to do is, I think, to place notes on your old and new user pages to indicate their connection, and that would also show that you were not trying to evade scrutiny. Let's all get back to work. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Medical definition of death article for deletion
[edit]Hi NeatGrey. I've nominated the Medical definition of death article for deletion. The article started out with the title Legal death, and the lede still reflects that meaning, but the article drifted so far off topic that somebody renamed it and created the proper Legal death article that exists today. As it is now, I don't even know what the Medical definition of death article is supposed to be about because the lede doesn't even define what "Medical definition of death" means apart from legal death, which already has its own article. By the way, I agree with all the points you made regarding the Information-theoretic death article, and duly note your attempts to improve the the Medical definition of death article. However I'm still not sure what the Medical definition of death article is supposed to be about if not legal death. As far as I can see, the Information-theoretic death section is the only notable non-redundant subject matter in the Medical definition of death article, and as such is best left on its own. Please comment when able. Thanks. Cryobiologist (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Steve Crane (entrepreneur) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
promotional article, part of a campaign for the company and its executives. No possible notability except with respect to the company, which is itself only borderline ; the references are either incidental mention or PR or interviews based on PR, none of which count for notability .
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The article Sam Biddle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Poor claim of significance and very little content. Mr. Biddle is an obscure journalist who's most notable moments were being involved in two minor and mostly forgotten Twitter spats. That doesn't justify having an article and his involvement in the more notable of the two is already covered under the Justine Sacco incident subsection of the article for online shaming - and it does a much better job of doing it.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. 109.79.60.153 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Tom Currier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This article doesn't meet the WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The subject is mentioned in some press around a specific time, but the press isn't focused on him and there's no lasting notability either. This seems to exist to lend clout to his startup.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. FalconK (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The article Halcyon Molecular has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Doesn't meet WP:CORP. It was founded, did company things for a bit, and then shut down uneventfully without significant coverage meeting the guideline.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. FalconK (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Tom Currier for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Currier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Currier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Reywas92Talk 02:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Halcyon Molecular for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halcyon Molecular until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
FalconK (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Noor Siddiqui for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noor Siddiqui, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noor Siddiqui until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The article Liron Shapira has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
WP:1E: Subject of article is only know for an insignificant role in Quixey.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellroy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.