User talk:Colin at cycling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello Colin at cycling, and Welcome to Wikipedia!New-Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Colin at cycling, good luck, and have fun. --Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Colin at cycling, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Colin at cycling! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bicycle helmets in Australia[edit]

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Have you read the neutral point of view policy? Wikipedia articles are required to be as neutral as possible, not taking sides on any question or issue. Your recent addition to Bicycle helmets in Australia seems to be making an argument about why bicycle helmets are bad, and that doesn't work with this policy. I'm going to remove it for now; if you disagree with me, feel free to discuss it at Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia or ask for a third opinion on whether your proposed edit follows the neutral point of view policy. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Bicycle helmets in Australia. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit I made was to a statement included in "Hillman, M.. 1993. Cycle Helmets: the case for and against, Policy Studies Institute." it was a reasonable inclusion to include. Other citations listed stem from the 1980's, so age was not an issue. No proof as been provided to say the statements are in any way incorrect.

Your name[edit]

Hi, does the "at cycling" bit of your username refer to a cyclists' lobbying organisation in Australia? - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No ~~Colin at cycling~~

OK, thanks. Please could you sign your messages using ~~~~ in future? That is the easiest way to get a "proper" signature appended toa message and it automatically adds a link to here & also a timestamp. The output look similar to this --> Sitush (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Saw that you have signed using the four-cedilla method. Much easier for everyone, so thanks for that. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have been advised off-wiki of who you are, and I think that your response to my initial query was accurate but obtuse. It would seem from the off-wiki note that you do indeed have a conflict of interest and as such you really should declare it. You should also refrain from adding any works in which you had an involvement to the article: raise them on the article talk page and let others decide whether inclusion is justified. We are not going to make much progress if people continue to act in bad faith and it is my opinion that failure to declare an interest in an article that is as contentious and technically demanding to the reader as Bicycle helmets in Australia amounts to bad faith. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you are fishing around and posting unsuitable comments. I gave you a very simple answer yet you have digressed into conflict of interest issues. Contacting people off -wiki. Wiki rules require people downloading graphs to be the author, so clearly I must be the author.

I have stated that I have no substantial conflict of interest, e.g. no funding issues, sales issues, vested interest issues. Reading the wiki guidelines I cannot see how a conflict of interest arises. "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."

I am not unduly influenced by a secondary interest. I have indeed been critical of cycle helmet laws but not without reasonable/just cause and I see no conflict of interest in opposing unjust laws but from a fair point of view. Colin at cycling (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I contacted no-one off-wiki - someone contacted me. Actually, several people did in order to fill the gap in your obfuscated response above. Similar with Dorre, who has also obfuscated.
  • You do not have to have a "substantial" conflict of interest; any conflict causes a potential problem in a controversial article. And writing a paper that is cited as a source is a pretty big likely problem. Do I have to hunt to see whether or not you actually added that thing in the first instance? Oh, and being a vocal critic of mandatory use and an officer of the anti-helmet CTC also raises issues.
  • "I have indeed been critical but not without reasonable/just cause" indicates a potential POV issue, which is indeed supported by past contributipns. Same with "unjust laws".
  • You also do not appear to understand that just because "Wiki rules require people downloading graphs to be the author" does not mean "so clearly I must be the author."
  • I'll let you into another secret: I've also been told off-wiki that you are out of your depth regarding statistical analyses. I've had no prior dealings with those who say this sort of thing, I've no idea whether or not it is true, nor do I particularly care because the subject matter is of no interest to me. But right now you are certainly out of your depth when it comes to understanding how Wikipedia is intended to function. You are also making assumptions about things that I have said: I do hope that assumptions do not also form a key part of your analyses, although I guess that might explain in whole or in part why their suitability has been questioned.
COIs are not insurmountable and certainly your input on the article talk page is fine and can help to form consensus. Editing the article itself is a much less clear-cut issue. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If Wiki wanted all my details they should have made it a condition that only real names can be used and all reports published listed. Then all editors would be named with their backgrounds. Some use their own names and others do not. Why should anyone provide a full account while others are not using their own names?

I suggest any change or information suggested should be considered on its merits and not the person who posted the info. It the info is valid and worth including then include it. Many people have access to detailed reports and any invalid information will come to light. I try to provide valid info, it is not only about if the info is valid but how it is presented. I would suggest allowing the 4 points I make to be included and certainly if any good reasons are provided to reconsider them, review their inclusion. Data on fines for example may become more up to date. Colin at cycling (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

BRD[edit]

Please can you read WP:BRD because it affects this revert. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Indenting[edit]

Unless you start appropriately indenting your comments at Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia, I am going to delete every inappropriate addition made by you. You've had enough time to understand how talk pages operate and you are causing chaos with your selfish approach. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Colin at cycling. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)