User talk:Posa51

January 2024[edit]

Hello, Posa51. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Eric Lerner, 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, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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. Remsense诉 03:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Remsense:

1- Thank you for shortening the intro to the Eric Lerner Wiki page. I planned to do that myself today but you beat me to the punch

2- I am not/ never been an employee or contractor for Eric Lerner or LPPFusion. I am a science writer with extensive publications, although for the past fifteen years I have worked for a biomedical foundation. I have been aware of Lerner's research and publications for some time and felt I could contribute to the Wiki community with this timely update of his page

3- I need to add footnotes to validate the claims of this article. It seems I am locked out by you. Is that correct? Posa51 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lerner[edit]

Hi, I undid your edit to the lead section. Please keep the lead short and clear. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Broc (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please check the guidelines on the lead section of pages. Several editors are trying to clean up your edits. Broc (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to add footnotes to the lead intro. Is that prohibited? Posa51 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, the lede is a summary of sourced content from the body of the article. Generally, the lede does not need footnotes on its own. If you are thinking of adding footnotes to the lede, you should probably instead add the content further down in the text of the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was BRONC who said he deleted the lede because it was "unsourced"... They've got me coming and going. All I ask is that the ROLLBACK be rolled back. Let me re-post the lede and if anyone wants to haggle over a referenced source then we can do that. Posa51 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

help request[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Someone deleted all my publications without community discussion. How do I know if this was an administrator? Posa51 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't identify the edits in question, but looking at Eric Lerner as an example, there are reasons given in edit summaries. Community discussion can be started by either party in a disagreement about content, usually on the talk page of the article. It looks like some discussion is already happening at Talk:Eric Lerner. Sometimes the edits happen before community discussion - this is the essence of WP:BOLD. Admins have no special authority regarding content, but you can use tools like the edit counter found at the bottom of a user's contributions page to see if they have the sysop bit. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't identify edits because the WHOLE PUBLICATION PAGE was rolled back. Everything... 50+ references. It was wholesale deletion. See the problem? Posa51 (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to behavioral comments at Talk:Eric Lerner[edit]

As an article Talk page is devoted solely to improving the article, I wasn't able to reply to your latest comment at Talk:Eric Lerner since most of it was about your opinions about my motivation, good faith, or actions, so I'm replying here instead.

A Self-serving reply from you. You're making up your own rules.
Please assume good faith about the motivation and actions of other editors; it is a core behavioral policy. In no way was it self-serving; I was trying to explain basic principles of Wikipedia sourcing to help you understand better why things may be going the way they are going at the article and the Talk page between you and another editor. I only got there relatively recently, and I don't have the full picture yet. And I'm certainly not making up any rules; how could I be, when I keep linking the rules for you?
There was never any intent to make my article "better"... the entire published piece was summarily taken down.
That's between you and Broc, who I presume had good reasons of his own, but I wasn't involved with that so you'll have to take that up with him. But please always assume good faith on the part of other editors, unless there is an abundance of clear evidence not to, and other editors who agree with you that a problem exists. So far there is no reason to assume that about any of their actions, afaict, but I haven't been there long.
If you're serious about making my piece "better", then revert to what I published and we can go through it line by line.
1. It's not your piece. When you clicked "Publish", you you agreed to the wmf:Terms of Use, and irrevocably agreed to release your contribution under Wikipedia's licensing terms. Anybody is free to edit it.
2. That's backwards. You made a bold edit – that's both acceptable and encouraged. Someone undid it; that's also normal and acceptable; someone disagreed with your contributions. The next step, is to come to the Talk page to discuss, which is what you have done. So far, everything is going per plan. But the onus is on you to justify your edits and gain consensus for them, not on the rest of the world to leave your edits in place and discuss removing them. See, e.g., WP:BRD.
Obviously scientific findings published in a recognized, peer-reviewed journal are, as Wiki (science) clearly states, IDEAL sources.
I've already explained the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources at the article Talk page, and so have others; I won't repeat my explanation here simply because you've restated your opinion. And I've already told you to go discuss this at WT:NOR if you disagree with the description of the role of primary sources at Wikipedia. Going on about it at the article (or here) will get you exactly nowhere, as it's the wrong venue, and interested parties won't see your concerns here.
You're being argumentative and irrational...
Another AGF ding. I don't think any reasonable editor would agree with your view on my comments at Talk:Eric Lerner, and I should warn you that casting WP:ASPERSIONS is WP:UNCIVIL behavior, prohibited by Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. A continued pattern of this behavior could result in sanctions. On the other hand, if you sincerely believe I'm being argumentative (there's no guideline against irrationality) then marshal your evidence, and leave it on my Talk page and it can be discussed. (Fair warning: if you just repeat your accusation with no evidence, that will just count against you.)
you seem quite eager to prevent Eric Lerner's findings, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals of the highest professional stature, to be suppressed.^[sic] So what are your motives?
Nothing of the sort; and there ya go, failing to assume good faith again. My motives are to help develop an online encyclopedia; a subset of that involves trying to help new editors get on board, which is what I am doing at this page now. May I ask what your motives are?
As for NOR, you're being entirely disingenuous.The NOR policy states: ... (followed by a quotation of the lead sentence of NOR).
Yes, that is the lead sentence, but you didn't go far enough. Try scrolling down just a bit further, to section § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Also, "originality" is one of the chief criteria of getting your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. That would be anathema at Wikipedia, a tertiary source. The proper role of WP:PRIMARY sources has already been explained to you at Talk:Eric Lerner#Sidebar on PRIMARY and SECONDARY, so I won't repeat myself further.
The Physics of Plasmas qualifies as "reliable, published source" ... basically you're banning any reports in the scientific literature since presumably ALL scientific research is ORIGINAL.
1. Yes, it does qualify as reliable;
2. your predicate about "banning" certainly seems like a jump to a wild conclusion; not to mention, another example of failing to assume good faith on my part. The "Physics of Plasma" may be a reliable journal, but the citation shows that Lerner was lead author, therefore it is not WP:INDEPENDENT, and therefore not in the category of a reliable source for the purpose of an article about Eric Lerner.
3. Already discussed at § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Not all scientific papers are PRIMARY (although most are); literature surveys and reviews and meta-analyses are secondary, and has already been pointed out, are the gold standard for the purposes of reliable, secondary sources.

This is probably not easy to hear, and whether you believe me or not, I am trying to help you on-board at Wikipedia, which is tough for anybody. It can be particularly galling if you've spent a lot of time adding content, only to see another editor remove it; no one will blame you for feeling miffed or worse. But please understand that this something everyone experiences at some point here, it is part of the way things get done around here; it's just a fact that there are lots of editors working on lots of articles, and inevitably you will have some disagreements about what an article should say. The thing to do, is to discuss it on the Talk page—which you have been doing; +1 for that—and if that doesn't work, there are other alternatives. A little more concentration on the content, a lot less discussion of other editors and their motivations would be good, as would a willingness to hear out experienced editors trying to help you understand how to edit an online encyclopedia successfully.

I have to be honest, and tell you that there's an issue with your tone, as well. You come across as argumentative, and quick to attack other editors or question their motivation. This is not a good look, because with our "anyone can edit" philosophy, you are simply going to have to get along with other editors. There's really no alternative, except maybe for some gnomish tasks that some lone-wolf editors can perform, like hunting down and fixing typos, but that doesn't seem like your style. So, I really want you to succeed, here, and basically a more collegial tone would help, as would granting that other editors are here for the same reason you are, to improve the encyclopedia. I hope this helps, and if you have any questions, feel free to reply below; you can also ask questions at the WP:Tea house, or at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Your response here at Talk:Eric Lerner to my legitimate inquiries about how best to handle critical opinion about Lerner's theories was dripping with sarcasm, devoid of any constructive content, and reeked of your assumption of bad faith on my part. It is disruptive of attempts by serious editors to engage in discussion in order to improve the article, and represents a continued pattern of incivility and lack of collegial interaction between you and other editors. Please knock it off now. Further disruption or incivility may prompt me or another editor to seek sanctions against you. You can still turn this around just by avoiding this type of behavior in the future. A sign of good faith would be to <s>~~strike out~~</s> that comment; see WP:REDACT. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record, that prior to the edits I linked just above, you had also made earlier edits which I hadn't seen at the time I posted, namely these:

Sounds as though there's a faction at Wiki with their own agenda and are suppressing/ censoring under some cover of legitimacy (diff)
We can't discuss content, (username), if you an a colleague decide to make your own rules about sourcing and disregard WIKI's clear policies on the subject. (diff)

This needs to stop now, and if you won't, maybe an Admin will. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posa51, I was preparing a detailed entry for WP:AN about your editing and was almost ready with it when this admin block dropped. I'll keep my detailed evidence (a dozen diffs and accompanying analysis) handy offline, if needed at some point.

There's an irony here, in that with your academic background, in theory you would be well qualified to expand Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of scientific topics. However, you ran into a problem that I've seen several times before, namely the very different culture at Wikipedia and academia which in some cases actually may make the adjustment to Wikipedia policies and guidelines more difficult for a new editor with an academic publishing background, than for someone with no such background. There's a real pattern here, and I've told myself numerous times to create an essay about this to help new academic editors, and I just haven't gotten around to it yet; that's on me.

I'm available for consultation on what to do next, but I won't be offended if I am the very last person you'd choose to solicit advice from; nevertheless, the offer is genuine. I wish you the very best. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to an unblock without consulting me if an admin believes a more collaborative and open attitude is forthcoming here. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]