User talk:Deselliers

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Deselliers, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, Ahunt. As you may see in my contribution page, I have contributed to Wikipedia for over a year, so I am quite familiar with these recommendations!

Including the first of the five pillars of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers...". --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy lead[edit]

Hi, you seem to have removed a lot of content, including the lead, from this article. Is there a reason for this? Verbal chat

Negative, Verbal:
* Most of the stuff was moved in the section I created "Origins of the aspartame controversy".
* I did remove two sentence and placed them temporarily in the discussion section 3 removal of section ? in view of finding a better place for it.
Hoping you find the changes adequate, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Italics on genus names[edit]

Recently you added wikilinks to Nosema and Varroa on the page Imidacloprid effects on bees. Thanks for doing that, it's very helpful! I wanted to let you know that at the same time you removed the double-single-quotes, which are needed to make the genus names appear correctly in italics. – monolemma t – 20:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, monolemma . Do all genus names have to be in ithalics? --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jacques, it is standard both in scientific papers and on Wikipedia to write all genus and species names in italics. Here is a link to the Wikipedia policy: MOS:ITALIC. Also, I moved your comment from my user page to my talk page. – monolemma t – 21:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, monolemma, this will help improving my future edits. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Answer to the question on Torture stake[edit]

I answered your question. DS (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DS. I replied to your reply. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to "How can I see an enlargement of the image in the top-right box?"[edit]

Regarding your question here, I opened a new section on the talk page here. Jesse V. (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jesse V.. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Linking[edit]

Will you please read WP:OVERLINK , particularly the bit about one link only. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dougweller, it is very interesting! --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joel Augustus Rogers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solace (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) 11:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I did so because the solace page starts with a definition of the word - which I am not familiar with, and I guess I'm not the only one... So is it OK to keep the link as it is? --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dead-end infection[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Dead-end infection has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No real context in the article to establish notability. Comment by the article creator that they are no even sure they are right in creating this article. Would be better being mentioned in Infection in the same way Dead-end host is mentioned in Host.

While all 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

hi Jacques. I work on Conflict of Interest (COI) matters in Wikipedia, as well as other stuff. I noticed that you have been directly editing the article on GreenFacts. Per our COI guideline, you should not be directly the article. I am providing you formal notice of our COI guideline and our Terms of Use, and will have some comments and questions for you below.

Information icon Hello, Deselliers. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Comments/questions[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.

Briefly, conflict of interest is managed in Wikipedia in two steps: disclosure of the conflict, and offering edits on the Talk page for others to review instead of directly editing the article. You have already disclosed the relationship, so the first part is done. Going forward, please do not edit the article directly, but rather offer suggestions at the article's Talk page. You can do that easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the bottom of the beige box at the top of the Talk page - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. Would you please agree to do this? Thanks.

You may also want to read WP:Wikipedia is in the real world and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia if you are not aware of the background on COI-editing in Wikipedia.

You can reply here if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jytdog: Please read carefully the "Edits reversal" topic on the GreenFacts talk page, as well as my edits that have been unduly reverted (they only consisted of updating obsolete links and, in one case, of a sentence quoted from the GreenFacts website), before jumping to conclusions. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for writing here, Jacques but this is not about your recent edits nor their reversion - I am not involved in that content discussion and it is best if I don't get involved in it. This is a general discussion about your COI and how to manage it. Would you please respond? Again - it is important for Wikipedia (and for that matter, for GreenFacts) for COI to be managed. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Jacques as someone who contracts with the EU government you surely understand the importance of COI. Would you please respond about how to manage your COI in Wikipedia going forward? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Jytdog: Sorry for the late reply, I don't go everyday on Wikipedia. As I wrote on the GreenFacts discussion page, "I have left GreenFacts 7 years ago and have no other interest than ensuring that it's Wikipedia page is accurate and up-to date." To which Talk replied: "If you no longer have an affiliation with the article-subject, than this is not considered a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia would allow (even encourage) you to go ahead and make bold edits". So I understand I don't fall under COI.
The disagreement between Talk and I is essentially about changes that are purely updates of obsolete links and, in one case, of a sentence quoted from the GreenFacts website. For another change about re-introducing a sentence about GreenFacts collaboration with the EC, I have long accepted to give up, as I wrote on the discussion page. Hoping this clarifies the matter. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Your userpage says you are the Vice Chairman of the board. Is that not the case? Regardless of how you answer that, in my view you have a COI it is your "baby" as it were - you are clearly attached to it as it is one of the things you feature prominently on your Userpage. Please do answer about the board role and if you see my point about COI. If you disagree we can take it to COIN and see what the community has to say about it... Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, @Jytdog: I left the board of GreenFacts in 2009, being involved full-time with electric vehicles. My resume at Jacques de Selliers was obsolete, and I just corrected it. I am now just a frequent reader of the GreenFacts summaries, since I still have a strong interest in the scientific aspects of environmental and health topics. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── thanks for clarifying that you left the board. OK, so it is your position at this time, that you don't have a COI with regard to GreenFacts, right? If so, at a minimum, do you acknowledge that having founded it, you are probably an advocate with regard to them? (if you haven't read the advocacy essay I just linked to, please have a look). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, @Jytdog: I am definitely one of the two founders of GreenFacts, as I wrote on my user page, being one of the rare wikipedians to provide a résumé on that page. I read the page advocate, which "has been created to support editors who have accessibility problems with Wikipedia, up to and including potentially facing disciplinary measures. It can often be that individual editors, through no fault of their own but rather as a result of certain conditions they may have, will have difficulties of one sort or another editing Wikipedia." So I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "Are you an advocate with regard to them?". If the question is "Do you still value the scientific summaries published by GreenFacts", the answer is a big YES: no other website I know provide such clear and faithful summaries of leading scientific reports of these often controversial topics!
However, the changes I wanted to make on the GreenFacts article have nothing to do, even remotely, with any form of advocacy: they are purely updates of obsolete links and, in one case, of a sentence quoted from the GreenFacts website, in order to improve the quality of the article. I really don't see why they should cause any problem! Kindly address this point in your reply. Thanks, Jacques de Selliers (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
argh, wrong link - i am so sorry!! This one: WP:ADVOCACY is the one I meant. Again, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jytdog:, I read WP:ADVOCACY and really, as explained above, I cant see how my edits would fit in any of these categories. Don't you agree? Jacques de Selliers (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
It is OK if we disagree. We are two people with different perspectives is all. I will open up a case at COIN to get input from the community, and let's see where that goes. Thanks for tolerating all this, but we need to look out for COI to protect the integrity - folks may well agree with you, and then you will be able to point to that, should anything arise in the future. - will post a link in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, {{ping|Jytdog}, I have replied on that page. But can you explain me why you think the changes I wanted to make on the GreenFacts article, which are purely updates of obsolete links and in one case, of a sentence quoted from the GreenFacts website, have anything to do, even remotely, with any form of COI? Jacques de Selliers (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't the content that caught my eye. I watch CorporateM's Talkk page. When I saw your posting about the content dispute, I looked at your Userpage, and saw the COI issues, and posted here about COI. I tend to stay out of content disputes while I am dealing with a COI issue - COI is one of the very rare things here that is about contributor, not content. Most often I am made aware of possibly conflicted editing by certain patterns in the edits that are made, but that is not what happened here. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jytdog. I fully agree that if there were something arguable about my edits, seeing the COI issues would be an excellent reason to suspect them of bias. But again, in this instance, it is NOT the case: you can easily check in the history pages that, except for the first of my 5 edits that could possibly be considered as arguable (and although I don't think it is, I have immediately accepted its deletion it in the discussion page), my 4 other edits are purely updates of obsolete links and, in one case, of a sentence quoted from the GreenFacts website. So I think the COI is in this very case a non-issue. Could you support that? Jacques de Selliers (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
you are locked in on the content dispute with CorporateM. I am not commenting on that. really. What I will say, is that your edits do share one with conflicted editors' - you added a block of content with no independent sources. Part of the bias that a COI creates, is that the organization's own website (or that of its partners) is/are meaningful. For independent editors, not so much. (this is why we have WP:Golden rule and why it features the word "independent" in such big letters - it is hard for conflicted editors to "get" that - and why the article on GreenFacts is validly up for AfD) Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Jytdog, I didn't add any "block of content with no independent sources" in any of my last four edits - those who created this fire that I just can't understand. Jacques de Selliers (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at this dif which added back with what you called better sources:

GreenFacts works under contract for the European Commission to produce factsheets and summaries of scientific reports of the Scientific Committees of the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, which are published both on the European Commission's website [1] and on GreenFacts website.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Easy to read summaries of scientific opinions". EUROPA Website. Retrieved 2015-10-06.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ "GreenFacts' Co-publications website". GreenFacts. Retrieved 2007-10-12.  and Leaflets : GreenFacts summaries and Citizens' summaries in pdf format
The source is GreenFacts and your partner that hosts the things you wrote. That's all. (that is a pretty cool gig, by the way!) Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As mentioned above as well in the GreenFacts talk page, Jytdog, I have immediately accepted the deletion of the sentence "GreenFacts also works under contract for the European Commission..." as soon as CorporateM mentioned that he considers the European Commission website not to be an independent source. So this sentence is NOT the issue we are talking about. The issue is my four other edits, which are purely updates of obsolete links and in one case, of a sentence quoted from the GreenFacts website. Jacques de Selliers (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Boy are you hot on that content dispute! I told you I am staying out of that... I don't think, in any case, that CorporateM's reversion was on the basis of COI, was it? He doesn't think you have one. So I don't know why you are asking me to tie together the content dispute and the COI issue. They are separate in my mind. I think you are the only one mashing them together. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)