User talk:Dudewhereismybike

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dudewhereismybike, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Cloud computing security. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ~KvnG 13:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting Patrick Ryan papers as references[edit]

Hello, Dudewhereismybike. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

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.

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.--McGeddon (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't understand the conflict of interest claims here. An author of one article that brings it in as a citation for another article is not a conflict of interest, particularly when the articles are peer reviewed academic journals. There's no conflict there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudewhereismybike (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 July 2014‎

The issue is that every single edit you have made to Wikipedia since joining in February has been to source a statement to one of Patrick Ryan's papers. If you are Patrick Ryan, WP:SELFCITE discourages "excessive" use of your own material and cautions that you "should not place undue emphasis on your work". Writing that "Authors Ryan and Falvey have argued that cloud computing is not new" and "Authors Ryan and Falvey have pointed out that "[i]ncreasingly, there’s a market for information about how data is protected,"" in articles about major subjects would appear to be undue emphasis. --McGeddon (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and yes, I'm one of the authors, Ryan (I don't intend to obfuscate that). I don't mind taking out the name in the front (Authors Ryan & Falvey) but this has been a theme that we've been talking about for a while. The intention isn't to self-promote, but yes, we have some views that are not captured in the Wikipedia articles and it's valuable to the reader to point that out. Dudewhereismybike (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid dropping names just creates other problems; Wikipedia articles shouldn't contain unattributed "some say" statements. If we're going to offer the reader the opinion that cloud computing is "nothing more than a marketing term", we should attribute that opinion to somebody.

Given that the content you're adding is opinion rather than data, I'd say it was inappropriate to give yourself this prominence - it's not clear that either you or Falvey are recognised experts. If you think an article contains serious omissions, I'd suggest raising it on the article talk page and allowing other editors to assess it, and decide what sources they can to use to correct it. It looks like the cloud computing article already covers the 1950s/60s precursors of cloud computing adequately without needing to add your quote that cloud computing is "not new". --McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for prominence here, but yes, I think it's worth covering these points (the article that was cited had a treatment about the history of cloud computing, it's marketing origins, and the like). I hear you that we're not experts, although I'm curious what is it that you would consider to be qualifications for that? In any case, I can move this over to talk. Dudewhereismybike (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Test editing & Reinserting Patrick Ryan papers as references[edit]

User "Dudewhereismybike" your recent edits on article cloud computing shows your test edits on the main article, Try using your sandbox for testing and practicing, Secondly you are inserting non notable reference links form one particular website source, go thorough wikipedia policies before creating/editing articles straight away as user "McGeddon" & user "Kvng" advised you previously in brief messages above. @Kvng, McGeddon: Science.Warrior (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Good point about testing in the sandbox, will do, thank you.

July 2014[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Cloud computing. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: There's no intention to use anything here for advertising or promotion. While I agree that Wikipedia is not a collection of links, it is a source for further reading. The proposition here is that cloud computing is another form of Internet computing, which is not something that's otherwise covered. Happy to open up a discussion on this on the talk page.

User "Dudewhereismybike" Wikipedia is not a source to publish your own thoughts or research work, which you have agreed to do so, "inserting your own research work links on Wikipedia articles", please read Wikipedia polices thoroughly, specially WP:NOT#OR & WP:soapbox you have been advised and guided by other experienced editors but you seem to ignore them and reinsert your research work link on Wikipedia, we are trying to help you out in understanding that Wikipedia is strict on its policy and norms. Wikipedia is not a personal space for advertising your work, hope that helps. @Kvng, McGeddon: Science.Warrior (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughts, I had made edits that I assumed were acceptable to you. I've done a lot of thinking and writing on this and other policy topics, and I do think that there are some things worth covering here. I apologize that this has frustrated you, I did not mean to, and I thought that I opened the discussion on Talk. Maybe I didn't do it right, I'll check on that. Thank you for your thoughts.