User talk:Mtgho

Welcome!

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

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies

Hello, Mtgho. 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, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the 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 take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Mtgho. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently spamming articles with the same publication. As the paper author you have a conflict of interest and should be following the conflict of interest guidelines. Additionaly, if you are paid for this work, our Terms of Use require you to declare your affiliations.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SpinningSpark 16:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mtgho (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was not spam. I cited my article in related Wikipedia articles, I don't see why that would lead to a block and be considered spamming. I spent a lot of time looking for relevant Wikipedia articles to cite my work. My paper cited is about a novel hybrid soft/hard mask for deep plasma etching to make irregular dicing, deep mems structures, and provide an alternative for the common either hard or soft mask used in photo-lithography. All edited articles have been just edited to include this new piece of information, in the fashion that "this also exists." It is not an arbitration issue or opinionated discussion, I am not sure why this was not even discussed before reverting my hard worked edits in respective articles to add the information or why it is called a "spam." I would appreciate it if further explanation is provided. ThanksMtgho (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't get to promote our own work on Wikipedia, and even if self-promotion isn't your intent, it's entirely inappropriate to use one's own work as a citation on Wikipedia; it flies in the face of both WP:NPOV and WP:COI. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mtgho (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agree. I read through the policies and found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. I think this is the proper category that I, unknowingly, violated citing my original research work. The other claims about Ref spamming and promoting oneself were not a fair description of the issue with my edits, especially that it was not mentioned as better or in comparison to others or in a subjective manner, it was merely there to inform that this technique has been demonstrated, recently (as apparent in my edits). Anyways, now I agree that my edits should be reverted because original research should not be cited in wikipedia but I am not sure what does indefinite blocking mean and whether it is the appropriate action when it could have been discussed. Though I also agree it was my mistake not checking the related policies before making the edits. Thanks,

Accept reason:

Although I do not fully accept the unblock reasons as given here, as explained below and the further posts from the user, the problem editing looks like it is at an end. SpinningSpark 22:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do tend to be somewhat quick on the draw when dealing with COI an NOR issues. "Ref spamming" somewhat automatic -- all one needs to do is put links to the same article (or publication, etc.) in multiple articles; it doesn't even matter what the content is -- we'll block first and ask questions later. It seems a bit harsh, but unacknowledged paid editors and out-and-out spammers (often, the same people) are a downright plague here. An "indefinite" block doesn't mean forever -- it basically means "you're blocked until you can convince us that your intent and your practices don't violate Wikipedia's neutrality principles" (or whichever principles you ran afoul of.) All you really need to say is "I understand the mistakes I made", explain what they are like you did here, and convince another admin (there are lots of us who will help) that you'll proceed with Wikipedia in a more appropriate fashion. Don't bother with another unblock request -- the one above suffices; you can discuss this here and other admins will see it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mtgho, I am the blocking administrator. Let me first explain why the block was indefinite. You were warned on this page that we considered you had a conflict of interest COI issue. You did not respond to that communication, nor did you participate in the resulting discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. The only response that I could see was a continuation to insert the same reference that had caused the COI complaint into more articles. Since you would not communicate, the only option to bring it to a stop was to block you. Your opportunity to discuss this without getting blocked was at the stage user:BlackcurrantTea messaged you. As user:Jpgordon said, indefinite doesn't necessarily mean forever.

You have now been told multiple times that the issue with your editing concerns conflict of interest. However, in your unblock request you seem to have made up your mind that the issue is WP:NOR. This is not correct. It is good that you now agree that it was right to revert you edits, and I was almost on the verge of unblocking you, but I am still concerned that you are not quite getting it. The paper you published is original research (OR), but citing it here on Wikipedia is not because another source is being cited. Wikipedia means by OR adding material that has not been previously published elsewhere. Rather, the actual problem is COI. Even if your additions are purely factual, they may still not be appropriate to add to Wikipedia. As the author of the paper, you are not in the best position to judge the importance of the work and whether or not it would be undue weight for the article. You are not neutral. This is why we advise COI editors to request additions on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly themselves. I might have taken a more lenient view if your paper had been highly cited (although you would still be guilty of COI editing). Others taking notice of it shows that it is notable, and hence belongs on Wikipedia. However, Google Scholar is showing no citations at all for the work. If you indicate here that you now understand these issues, I will be happy to unblock you. SpinningSpark 16:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for not noticing the earlier discussion before the block. I received alerts but when I log to see what they are, the COI title would show a very lengthy content including many usernames, so I searched for my username and nothing showed so I concluded it is a general note sent to anybody who starts editing articles. I understand that adding my OR articles is a conflict of interest and now, I see the proper way to do it is to wait until the OR gets cited to signify its importance in the field and then add it to the discussion/talk on the topic before it is added. I was a bit confused as I found many papers cited in many articles so I was not sure why mine specifically is considered OR and conflict of interest (now I know that it is the verification of others in terms of relevance through discussion and significance through citation that would qualify OR to be cited). It would be most helpful if there is a way to ask questions directly to someone who knows more about the rules.

I am going to unblock you on the basis of that response. In answer to your question about where to ask questions, we have a number of help desks geared to different tasks and levels: see Wikipedia:Questions. You can also ask another editor directly on their talk page. I am always willing to help new editors, just drop me a note. SpinningSpark 22:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks and wish you a great day!