User talk:Stevenbdamelin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Stevenbdamelin, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Snowysusan (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Abdullah Alam (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Damelin[edit]

You left a message at my talk page indicating you didn't understand what the reviewer wanted you to do. If you go to the article you will see the following comment left by the reviewer for you:

You need to improve the formatting of the article. Have a look at some of the well-written articles and try to adopt relevant style for formatting. Add sections to it. Abdullah Alam

I have since gone to the article and attempted to assist with the formatting of the article and improve some of the language and grammar in the article.

I note, however, that your user name is the same as the subject of the article. Writing about yourself or someone very close to you is strongly discouraged. While editing your article just now, for example, I removed a lot of non-neutral language. Please see writing from a neutral point of view. We tend not to be able to be neutral when writing about ourselves or someone we are close to; thus, I removed words like acclaimed, great, distinguished, etc., etc. These types of adjectives have no place in a Wikipedia encyclopedia article.

I am about to check your sources and get back to you because I have a feeling they need work as well. I hope this is helpful and I will get back to you. Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had a look at your references and would ask you to please review them carefully. In one instance you use a reference (#8) to support the assertion that Damelin either held a teaching or research position at the University of Minnesota. However, when I click on the link to the reference, it takes me a site where the only reference to Damelin are his comments about a short two week course he took at the Institute for Mathematics and Its Applications. Taking a two week course at an Institution does not make one either a teacher or a researcher there. Again, you need to be very careful not to exaggerate or mis-state any facts and make sure your references actually support what is written in your article. Please review them and remove any that don't actually support what you claim in your article and/or remove the claim if it cannot be support by an independent reliable source.

Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Damelin Article[edit]

Footnote number 1 takes a reader to a homepage for Steve Damelin that indicates it is created and maintained by Steve Damelin. It is not considered either independent or reliable by Wikipedia's standards. This footnote should be removed. If you want to cite a website that is maintained by the subject it should be at the end of the article in an external links section.

Footnote number 2 should support the assertion that Damelin (1) completed a Ph.d in 1996, (2) completed it at Witwatersrand University in South Africa, and (3) completed it under the supervision of Doron Lubinsky. Instead it takes the reader to Doron Lubinksky's web page which does not indicate any of those things. This footnote should be removed.

Footnote number 3 is also cited as supporting the above three assertions but when I click on it takes me to something called the Doron Lubinksky mathematical genealogy page. There it lists Damelin as having been a student of Lubinsky's at Witswatersrand in 1996. The site tells us it's a project of the North Dakota State Univesity. It appears to be an independent site and subject to supporting sites is reliable for this information. However, it doesn't contribute to notability because it doesn't say anything about Damelin other beyond that factual information.

Footnote number 4 should support the assertion that Damelin held research and/or teaching positions at the University of South Florida but instead it takes the reader to a page for Volume 202, Issue 1, Pages 1-154 (1 May 2007) of the Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics wherein it appears Damelin co-wrote the preface to that volume with Wen-Xiu Ma. The Journal is published by a company called Elsevier. It doesn't support the assertion that Damelin held research and/or a teaching position at the University of South Florida. This footnote should only be used to support the fact that Damelin co-wrote the preface to this volume of this journal, nothing else.

Footnote number 5 should support the assertion that Damelin held teaching and/or research positions at The Katholieke Universiteit, Belgium. Instead it takes the reader to the personal webpage of Arno Kuijlaars who claims to claims to be with the Department of Mathematics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. In his list of publications he indicates he wrote two journal articles with Damelin. This footnote is not capable of supporting anything more than that - Damelin co-wrote two articles with Arno Kuijlaars and Dragnev. A search performed at the KU Leuven site does indicate that Arno Kuijlaars is a professor there in the Faculty of Science. A search of the site for Damelin comes up with nothing. This footnote and the information that Damelin was a researcher/teacher at KU Leuven should be removed unless it can be supported by a reliable, indpendent source.

Footnote number 6 should support the contention that Damelin was a researcher and/or teacher at the Pennsylvania State University but when one clicks on the link it goes to the Penn State page for George E. Andrews, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Mathematics. Damelin is not mentioned anywhere within Professor Andrews' page or publications. This footnote should be removed along with the information that Damelin was a researcher/teacher at Penn State unless it can be supported by a reliable, indpendent source.

Similarly, footnote number 7 should be removed.

Footnote 8, having found the part of the page you indicated does support the comment in your submission and appears to be independent and reliable so it may stay in the article.

Footnote number 9 should take the reader to a source that indicates Damelin was once on faculty at Georgia Southern University - instead it takes the reader to the "The Unit for Advances in Mathematics and its Applications (UAIM)" This page, in it's opening line has a link to "Wayne County Day school" which appears to be a prep school. Damelin is not on staff and is not mentioned anywhere on the site that I could see. The next link on that page takes the reader to NSF Mathematical Sciences Institutes where there is no mention of Damelin. I note in contact info on a page you are entirely responsible for creating it lists your affiliations as "Department of Mathematics" but doesn't say where and "Wayne County Day School." Your contact numbers are for North Carolina. Damelin apparently has office space for UAIM at that school as your site indicates: "The Unit for Advances in Mathematics and its Applications currently supports visitors through office space and computer support, by courtesy of W Countryday." None of this information is independent and reliable and none of it supports the assertion that Damelin was on faculty at Georgia Southern University. When I go to the official Georgia Southern University site - it lists faculty and former faculty but Damelin isn't listed. If you want that information to remain in the article, you will need to cite an independent, reliable source for it.

Footnote 10 takes us to the Witwatersrand University site but it does not independently confirm that Damelin did his Phd there, researched there or held a professorship there. It is not helpful and the footnote should be removed.

Footnote 11 does appear to be an independent article about Damelin's work with the CHPC and indicates it is one of three primary pillars of the national cyber infrastructure intervention supported by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and managed by the Meraka Institute of the CSIR. The article also indicates that Damelin has some connection with WITS. The footnote supports that information but nothing more and should be cited for that information. One might even include something about the project because that tells us something about Damelin's work beyond his credentials. It would be better to cite this source though within the website it comes from so reader's can consider the nature and reliability of the source. (see http://eepublishers.co.za/article/hans-01-high-performance-computing-enabling-science-through-cyber-technology.html)

Footnote 12 is to an article about Damelin's work over "the summer" (should indicate which year) with the US Air Force. This is interesting and appears reliable and independent. But again, it is misplaced. It can be used to support the info contained in the article but not that Steve Damelin was a full professor of mathematics at Georgia Southern University or when he was a full professor there. The most this article indicates is that Damelin was at that point in time (whenever it was) an associate professor at Georgia State University.

I didn't go through the rest of the footnotes but this should be sufficient to give you an idea of the problems. Please revise the article to fix these types of problems. Some facts about Damelin simply may not be supportable with independent, reliable sources and, if not, they shouldn't be in the article.

Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps YOU SEEM TO BE USING SEVERAL IP ADDRESSES AND THIS ONE APPEARS TO BE A SHARED ONE AND IS BLOCKED. YOU SHOULD ONLY BE USING AN INDIVIDUAL IP ADDRESS THAT IS NOT BLOCKED. AND YOU SHOULD BE SIGNING ALL OF YOUR POSTS ON TALK PAGES.


Your article[edit]

Dear Stevenbdamelin. I am concerned that you are not really reading the policy and help pages set out in the welcome notice and in my messages to you. People and their email addresses are not acceptable sources at wikipedia - sources must be accessible to every reader so that the information in your article can be verified. Sources must be PUBLISHED sources, not people. As well, as I have mentioned before you have created a biography of yourself - that is strongly discouraged because articles must be neutral and objective and it is almost impossible to write such an article about oneself. Please read identifying independent, reliable sources, referencing for beginners, policy about autobiographies and notability criteria for articles about people. Once you have read these policies and revised your article as much as you can to comply with them, despite the fact that it is an autobiography, you may resubmit it at articles for creation for review. I won't personally be able to review it as my day job is quite busy right now but another experienced editor will take a fresh, independent look at it and let you know.

Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your own article[edit]

Hi Steven! I see you've been editing the Steven Damelin article. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Benjamin Damelin concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Benjamin Damelin, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Benjamin Damelin concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Benjamin Damelin, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Benjamin Damelin concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Benjamin Damelin, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Benjamin Damelin[edit]

Hello, Stevenbdamelin. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Steven Benjamin Damelin".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Benjamin Damelin}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI, as notified year ago[edit]

Information icon Hello, Stevenbdamelin. 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. 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, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:9003:D040:24F8:507F (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2601:188:180:11F0:9003:D040:24F8:507F (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though you've continued to add the name of your advisor, the person isn't notable, and the links provided don't mention you. If they did, this is content for you CV, not an encyclopedia. 2601:188:180:11F0:9003:D040:24F8:507F (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Benjamin Damelin has requested this article re him be removed. His many accomplishments are well documented but this editing war from an unscrupulous anonymous source is neither appropriate or ethical.

The article has been nominated for speedy deletion so this is most likely a moot point, but I wanted to point out that the anonymous editor here has been neither inappropriate nor unethical, but has in fact followed wikipedia policies. Given the number of times on this talk page that you have previously been advised and warned about editing an article about yourself and the need for independent, reliable sources, one could suggest that it is in fact this account that has been unscrupulous. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Stevenbdamelin, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:

  1. Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
  2. Please send an email to info-en@wikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles email is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

  1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your user talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NeilN talk to me 04:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20725 was submitted on Feb 24, 2018 16:08:30. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

I blocked that new account of yours, and deleted the article under "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". And then there's that other account, which has it in draft space...yes, User talk:StevenBenjaminDamelin. Now you know you have a few colleagues there who are actually decent Wikipedia writers--perhaps you should ask them how to write up a neutral article. Unblocking, by the way, starts here, on this talk page, not on that of the other two accounts. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drmies; Thankyou for your message. There was nothing wrong with latest article I submitted for consideration. I have no idea who you are and who these colleagues are you speak to and why you are doing this to me. I contacted the foundation to help me given I simply cannot understand what is taking place.

Have you looked at the recent article I submitted for consideration which was actually written with me and the help of another editor submitted for consideration?

Thankyou.

Stevenbdamelin (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

Stevenbdamelin (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenbdamelin (new section)[edit]

Hi, User:Uncle G, User:NielN, User:IVORK, User: Snowysusan,

I write to you on the advice of the Wkipedia foundation, see their note below, who have given me kind suggestions as to what to do given the following.

1. I am Steven B Damelin writing to you from this IP address at the University of Michigan. Me, my students and two colleagues (George Andrews and Lon Mitchell) have indeed been working on a Wikipedia article published about me. This has lead to some complications given an article was approved and published in 2018 (it was published for some time), then suddenly removed and since then I have been unable to restore it. There were quite a few updates to the article made.

Below is the history of this complicated story--I may have left out some as the Foundation told me to tell you and that is certainly the truth. Also the foundation kindly did a lot of research to help me. Certainly I am in no way in tune with what goes on and that should be quite apparent by multiple attempts.

2. I registered the accounts StevenbDamelin, MathGeneology1, StevenBenjaminDamelin. These were not registered at the University of Michigan---the IP address will be from the American Mathematical Society in Ann Arbor where I worked from 2013-March 2019. The 2012 entry was done when I was on leave in North Carolina. The IP addresses will confirm these. All of the articles themselves were written for the most part by two of my students (Kerry Causwe and Sung Jin Wang): https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=82936 but I did write parts, George and Lon also helped with input.

3. I had no idea that by me registering the accounts would create such confusion and feelings of deception. I am very sorry for that. MathGeneology 1 is a nick name for a site on PhD students. Sungin Wang now at Google and Kerry at Nasa. None of these names are me being someone else. To be honest I certainly admit that a lot of what you maybe reading into this may certainly show confusion re the process by me, but I would never ever reflect myself as someone else. Why would I possibly do that? My credentials are what they are. This is no deception or made up story: http://www.umich.edu/~damelin.

4. In fact every single word of the articles were absolutely honest with backups for every single thing. Two were too long. We adjusted and adjusted and the latest version (Geapsu) is really good. An editor helped I cannot remember his name.

George registered this.

5. As to editing---yes I did edit partly all four of the articles. I include the last one which George Andrews my colleague registered at Umich. I had no idea this would be a problem.

Why would I edit articles about me: The reason is simple: I am an ethical academic---I want to make sure everything online is 100% the truth. My credentials speak for themselves so this article should too. Why would I listen to editors and make continued changes if I was not serious. What do I gain by putting things on the internet which are wrong---look at my credentials.

6. I understand the conflict of interest and I understand your policy re not having somebody too close write an article. I assure you George and Lon are extremely ethical people and as I said, nothing in the articles is or was not true.

7. As the foundation told me: I am extremely sorry for all of this mess. I am not deceptive, certainly confused but not deceptive. I understand why you would feel like that.

8. So in summary:

a. The first three articles I registered (at AMS and North Carolina) Kerry and Sung Jin (my Phd students), me and George and Lon edited (apart from Wikipedia editors).

b. The last article George registered at Michigan. He worked on it but my input was there for sure.

c. Me registering the articles was just not understanding. Me providing input was because I wanted the article to be 100% accurate.

9. The foundation asked me to read the conflict of interest and I have plus the section on what to do if things go wrong,

10 I request as per the advice below that the draft Draft:Steven_Benjamin_Damelin be undeleted so that George and Lon can continue to edit it if you want. Please also please unlock one of the accounts so I can also edit other articles as the foundation suggested I ask of you. They say it so I am not self promoting myself and they are correct---I have no problem helping to make articles better. I am an editor myself for several journals and was an editor at AMS for close to 6 years.


11. I promise that this mess will not happen again. If you do not want me to make edits to the article in the future for accuracy (things change of course) I will ask a colleague to do it who is extremely ethical like George or Lon who will write it as it is.

Thank you and I hope to work this all out soon so it can be published.

Nick's note is below.

Steve Damelin.

67.194.18.17 (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.........................................

Forwarded message ---------

From: Wikimedia Answers <answers@wikimedia.org> Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:19 PM Subject: Re: A serious and problematic Wikipedia problem To: <damelin@umich.edu>


Dear Steve Damelin,


Thank you for contacting the Wikimedia Foundation.

I understand that you and your colleagues have been working to get a Wikipedia article published about you, and that this has led to some complications.

Firstly, I should mention that we at the Wikimedia Foundation do not create or oversee the content that appears on Wikipedia or any of the other sites we manage, nor do we develop the policies that govern content. This work is done entirely by our vast community of volunteers. I can provide some insight that you may be able to use to address the issue.

Firstly, I see that the Draft article was deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Steven_Benjamin_Damelin&action=edit&redlink=1 and the reason given was "Repeated re-creation of article by multiple, checkuser-blocked, sockpuppet accounts".

This likely means that: English Wikipedia volunteer administrators noticed that multiple accounts were trying to write or reinstate the article about you - and using their admin-tools, they probably saw that the edits were coming from the same IP address (your university), which led them to conclude that the multiple accounts were possibly from a single person who was trying to appear to be multiple people (aka "sockpuppets"). This is a scenario they have to deal with a lot, as you might imagine!


I see there was also some related confusion, from the discussions taking place at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevenbdamelin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Math1Geneology1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StevenBenjaminDamelin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geapsu but it is unclear who registered which accounts (i.e. which are you, and which are your colleagues/etc)


If you are the person who registered the account User:Stevenbdamelin then I suggest the following (steps and goals):

  • Begin your comment by "pinging" the admin who deleted the draft, which is done by linking their username,
  • Explain the situation. (That your colleagues were trying to help you, but that you're all a bit overwhelmed by the jargon and the profusion of rules)
  • Explain exactly who registered each of those 4 accounts (E.g. "I registered the accounts X and Y, my colleague/grad student/mentor/etc registered the account Z, ...") plus any additional involved accounts that I didn't stumble upon in my brief search.
  • Verify (for their benefit) that you have read the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide. I highly recommend that you read this document carefully. There are good pieces of information in there, that will both explain your circumstances, and help you understand the perspective of the volunteer editors - especially the section "What to do when something goes wrong". As you will see, it is considered a conflict of interest for you or for anyone closely associated with you to write an article about you. These conflicts of interest should be properly disclosed as described in the guide.
  • Request that ONE of the accounts which you registered, be unblocked, so that you can edit other articles in your domain of interest (a sign of good intentions beyond self-promotion).
  • Lastly (and importantly!) - At the end of your post, type 4 tildes (67.194.18.17 (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)), which will automatically be converted into your "signature" and a timestamp, when you Publish (save) the post. Click [Preview] to see how it functions. It must be included in the same 'edit' as the "ping" in order for the ping to work.[reply]


For further details about appealing a block, refer to this informational page. As that page says: You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:

that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; or: that your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range). So to successfully appeal your block, you will need to compose an unblock request (how to do that is described farther down in the informational page linked above) that convinces a reviewing administrator that the behavior that led to your block will stop and you will edit according to Wikipedia's policies from then on.


For future questions about blocks and Wikipedia policy and content, it is best if you contact the volunteers by following the links in the Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide, or by emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org which is staffed by volunteers.


I hope this information is useful, and I apologize for any difficulties you may have experienced so far.


Sincerely, Nick Wilson Wikimedia Foundation

Request: Undeletion of the Draft article (Draft:Steven Benjamin Damelin)[edit]

@Uncle G: Hello, I have explained above that I now understand the mistakes that I made in the past regarding conflict of interest editing and using different account-names over the years (I have identified myself to OTRS now). Please advise me on next steps, regarding an undeletion of the Draft article (Draft:Steven Benjamin Damelin) so that other people could work on it. Nick Wilson at wikimedia has been kindly assisting me with this process. The email below from me to info-en@wikimedia.org was copied to Nick and the response team email reply to my email sent are below received today.

Here is the email I received today: Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team 9:09 AM (3 hours ago) to me

Dear Steven Damelin,

Your account has been tagged as verified on the basis of this email coming through an official email account.

Yours sincerely, Ryan Perez

-- Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/ --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org/

17/07/2019 00:27 - Steven Damelin wrote:

> Hi. I am Steven Damelin, I am self-identifying, so that my account can be > unblocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevenbdamelin -- I have > acknowledged that I understand the other concerns, with my comment at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevenbdamelin#Stevenbdamelin_(new_section) > > > Thank you. > -- > > Dr Steven B. Damelin., Sponsored Affiliate, > Department of Mathematics, > University of Michigan, > 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI48109.Contact: Email <damelin@umich.edu> > Homepage: Homepage <http://www.umich.edu/~damelin>


Thank you. Stevenbdamelin (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Robert McClenon declined it, and DGG (who can see the deleted draft with his magic glasses) left extensive commentary, which I will paste below (in a box, to cut down on distraction). Looking at that draft, it is pretty obvious to any Wikipedia editor why it wouldn't be acceptable in this condition: it is written in a promotional manner (I've seen worse, but it's hardly very neutral--it reads like a faculty bio), and there isn't a single independent secondary source in the article--the closest it gets is when it cites this, but that's just a newsletter from a university. There's four references to arXiv papers--which is, first of all, not peer-reviewed, and second, that's primary, not secondary, and essentially creates a linkdump of articles by the subject. As such, I see no reason to restore this draft--it will never get to mainspace.

DGG's comments on draft
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First, notability is probable, but borderline. The density of citations in mathematics is normally very low , so the number of citations that count as having an influence is lower than other fields. But he is not currently working in pure mathematics, but rather in the applied fields of mathematical image processing, and in mathematics education, and I am not sure what would count as notable here. But it's close enough that it should be a question for AfD, not a disqualification here. I'm not an expert in this subject, and don't want to judge.

Second, this article is a paraphrase of his home page at University of Michigan [1]. It's not the sort of very close paraphrase that amounts to copyvio, but it some of it, like a single workshop, or having had a very notable great-uncle, are not usually the sort of thing we'd emphasise in an encyclopedia . What is not emphasized in the article is in fact the strongest claim to notability: co-authorship of what seems to be a major textbook [2], which seems to have had significant 3rd party reviews. It is mentioned in the article, but as one of a string of undifferentiated references. (His web page, incidentally, does not make clear that it is not a forthcoming publication, which would have raised the possibility of the article having been written to promote the book--ythe book was published in 2012--what is about to be published this year is a supplement.

Nonetheless, some of the draft is promotional : " his success in mentoring postdoc, graduate, undergraduate students" is not an appropriate claim, unless it should be the case that he has received a national level award for it.

The basic comment by the reviewer above is correct: the article cannot be judged properly until the references have been written in standard format. The reader should not be expected to have to hunt them down themselves to see whether they are likely to be third-party and substantial.

I think perhaps there might be need for a declaration of conflict of interest, which might be by the subject, but I think is more likely to be someone affiliated with his organization. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think an article is possible. I see no likelihood that the present author is likely towrite one. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG and Drmies: Thank you for the feedback. I do understand that I definitely should not write an autobiographical article myself. Two questions: I was wondering if it would be possible for this account to be unblocked now that it has been identified via OTRS, so that I might be able to edit and improve other articles? Separately, I'm also wondering if it would be acceptable for one of my grad students (who has expressed interest in helping) to create a new draft article about me, whilst bearing in mind that they would need to add the COI template on their userpage, and would need to find some reliable sources to base the article on? Thank you for any advice, and potentially for your help in unblocking this account. Stevenbdamelin (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I waited to write about my thesis advisor until he was (a) dead and (b) someone particularly asked for the article on wikipedia. In some way a grad student would be worse--you have the potential option of NPOV hard though it is to do in an autobiography, but one of your students must write what they think will please you--no matter what reassurances you may give them.
I am always a little concerned when someone is really eager for an article about themselves. It often has a promotional motive--sometimes a new book, or a new position.
When I reviewed your article, it concerned me that the article did not link to a formal CV--the personal page at UMich is not a CV in the usual sense. Looking further now, I found one linked from there at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~damelin/cvsbbddamelin1112018aweb.pdf. It's abbreviated, though, and I still do not see a full one online. It continues to both concern and puzzle me that neither this short CV, nor your personal page, nor the article draft, includes a direct statement of your present position. The short CV says "(2013-Present) The American Mathematical Society (AMS), (Mathematical Reviews). • (2013-Present) Academic Affiliate, The University of Michigan (courtesy appointment).; that CV links to https://lsa.umich.edu/math/people/mathematical-reviews.htm, but you are not listed on that page, nor on https://lsa.umich.edu/math/people.html. (Nor is it made clear that the New Directions professorship was for a single year.). Until this is cleared up I will certainly not advise proceeding with an article. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Here are the answers to your questions:

1. The link you found to my cv is an old one, it does not appear on my current webpage": personal.umich.edu/~damelin however given you found it, I went now to my unix public/html at U Michigan and deleted all old CV files. Clearly if you found it, others may and it certainly is not the most recent version. There is no link that one can visibly see from my homepage---that is why it is not there. However you found a link so your point is well taken and thank you. Regarding my CV, I do not like to put it online anymore. It is a personal taste. CV's change and as you found this link through my public/html others could. I do not want my wkipedia page to be long. It doesn't have to be. Nothing on my homepage is not correct. But you asked other questions so let me deal with these. You found things on the internet--I am not sure how one can correct things that google picks up over the years. One of the reasons I want a wkpedia page is that together with my homepage people out there get the facts. However you speak to full CV--I can send you mine if you want---if you can tell me the email address to use, by all means. Do not want a link though rather my homepage---you may have another idea. Happy to hear.

2. I do not work for the American Mathematical Society anymore. I resigned from them on 14 March this year---nowhere on my webpage does it say I currently work for them. I am not there because I do not work for them. https://www.ima.umn.edu/new-directions-professorships provides all Associate Editors and I am there. I will add this link.

3. Yes, I am affiliated with the Department of Mathematics at the University of Michigan. If I was not, I would not list it on my webpage. Tony Bloch, the Chairman of the Department abloch@umich.edu can and will verify this if you write to him. Tony has given me a sponsored affiliation which means I have access to University email, library and many other things which come with the title. I invite you to look at the link: https://documentation.its.umich.edu/mcommunity/your-title-and-affiliation-mcommunity which explains this in detail and the title "University of Michigan. Sponsored Affiliate". I have pasted below one communication from Tony to me re this. (just for you). I can make this into a pdf file if you like and/or Umich link I have provided you. I will need to ask Tony if he is ok for me to put an email from him to me online and I do not want to do this---suffices for you here it is. How about just the link? Note the date: March 21---I resigned from AMS 14th March. Any other ideas are welcome.

......................................... Anthony Bloch <abloch@umich.edu> Thu, Mar 21, 11:35 AM to Steven, Jeffrey

Hi Steve, this is fine.

Best, Tony


Anthony Bloch Department of Mathematics University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (734)647-4980 abloch@umich.edu


On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:02 AM Steven Damelin <damelin@umich.edu> wrote: Dear Jeff and Tony,

According to the University of Michigan website which I have looked at carefully, my current affiliation is:

University of Michigan Sponsored Affiliate.

If you are not happy with this, please let me know.

Best, Steve.

........................................................................................

4. My New Directions Professorship: Yes it was from 2005-2006. The link on my webpage, https://www.ima.umn.edu/new-directions-professorships, records my New Directions Professorship, a highly prestigious award. In my article I provided the exact information but I am happy to work with you to make this easy to check in my article. For your own sake, if you wish, I invite you to email Peter Olver the Chair of the Department of Mathematics at Minnesota olver@umn.edu and/or Doug Arnold arnold@umn.edu who was the Director of the IMA then and who gave me this award (two only for that year). Willard Miller, Distinguished and my coauthor of my Signal Processing book spoken about in my article (who actually wrote the first proposal for the IMA) miller@ima.umn.edu.


5. I do not have my article since it was taken away as part of your procedures so cannot recall what exactly was in it.

Given all of this, if you are now ok, can you now give me the article so it can be written again with your help by my student?

However please feel free to ask me any questions you have regarding anything re me.

Thank you so very much for all your help---I am worried that after this some other editor who has some personal issue with me ---I am well known-- to block me all again---I do not understand all the intricate details but if you both can make so that some other person cannot create havoc again.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you, Steve.

Stevenbdamelin (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please can you update me on this. There is nothing inaccurate about anything I listed. All the same, my career and affiliations could easily change. I am no different to anybody else. Until then, my affiliation is totally legitimate. Upon reflection, I am ok with my CV listed if you think it ok. I will also link my homepage. Its very important for my career that I have a wikipedia page and there is absolutely no reason why you should be saying no. Nobody's personal achievements are the same. My colleagues and me continue to find it very and increasingly disturbing that you will not allow this. As per my last message, I will work with you to create an accurate article re me. The article can have a link to my CV and my homepage together with appropriate verbage and links to everything. Your questions were fine and I have answered them. Please send me the previous article I had so I can rewrite it. As of the Winter, I will be fully teaching affiliated with Michigan. This is just for your interest. Thanks for your help. If you have any questions, let me know. Thank you, Steve.

Stevenbdamelin (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Dr. Damelin. You have some questions, I have some comments. You asked about being unblocked--perhaps you can just place an unblock request, or file one via OTRS, a procedure you are probably familiar with (I do not have access to the OTRS files and no interest in acquiring it). Second, you are asking whether the draft can be undeleted--I have already said that I do not think this draft should be undeleted. Third, you are proposing that, since it is now clear--I assume--that you shouldn't be editing your own biography, a grad student should be allowed to edit it, or get it in mainspace. But surely you understand that they would have the same COI that you have. Plus, are we talking about a grad student who is experienced as a Wikipedia editor, or are you going to ask one of your students, who depends on you for all kinds of things including, possibly, faculty evaluations, grades, and funding, to study up on Wikipedia and then edit your Wikipedia article by proxy? As I am typing out this sentence I realize just to which degree I am so incredibly uncomfortable with, even offended by, this very idea, and I am going to leave it at that. Please do not ping me anymore, lest I think even harder on what you are proposing here. BTW, I am a tenured professor at a four-year institution, albeit not as big as Big Blue, and I think I know something about how inappropriate that proposal of yours is. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note.

I have already put in this request to unblock my account. I worked with the foundation to put in this request.

Nothing has come of that. I was told to work with you.

I am not sure why you are bringing up your credentials and why you feel uncomfortable about anything. I am sure you are a highly qualified individual. I am simply requesting that an article be written about me like millions of others.

If you are bothered by the student---it really makes no difference to me who writes it---it should be accurate.

You seem to distrust me. My credentials are not fabrications.

The procedure as far as I understand is to have somebody else write the article and with a different COI as far as I understand. That is fine. The article is not a favor. It will list the facts as per your procedures.

Its great you are a tenured full Professor. Why would I have a problem with that

If you do not wish me to look at the other draft. The article can be started a new. All I am asking for is an editor to help me do this---that is all.

What do I need to do? That is all I am asking. And I am asking for your help given I was told to work with you by the foundation given you are an experienced editor.

Please get back to me. I assure you this is an incredibly bothering experience for me for I simply cannot understand what is taking place. I am following all procedures. You are an editor and a good one I believe. Just help me. That is all I am asking for.

Steve,

Stevenbdamelin (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is bothering to you? Imagine being one of your students. You know, that's really the icing on the cake: it doesn't bother you if a student writes it, but you seem oblivious to the fact that it bothers me, and that it will bother your HR department. I don't distrust your credentials: I just loathe what you are trying to do with them--let's see, you say you "need" a Wikipedia article for your career, you're prepared to (completely unethically) enlist a graduate student to do so, and you don't understand how I, as a colleague having the same kind of job, are bothered by that, even embarrassed: your behavior exemplifies the kind of abuse of power so many male professors have exercised over their grad students.

    Anyway, you weren't told to work with me personally, and I don't want to work with you. I don't care if you are borderline notable (there aren't millions of professors who are notable) or not: I am a volunteer here. Now stop pinging me, or I will ask another administrator to make you stop pinging me, by removing access to this talk page. DGG, I am sure you see that I have no interest in working with this person, and I hope you will forgive me for speaking my mind here, though I believe it was done in moderation--I am biting my tongue. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Unfortunately this process has become a nightmare for me and for no reason.

Nick Wilson from the Foundation who I contacted to help me explicitly told me to use a graduate student. I can if necessary, reproduce the exact email. It seems to me that a genuine request to have an article written re me is turning out to be something unlike I have ever seen before. HR department?

I am no idea as to the process, none. All I require is an article re me like millions of other scientists and with an editor to work with me. This you are denying me and I have no idea why.

Yes I was told by Nick Wilson to work with this editor. Again, I can reproduce the exact email.

You can view the communications I have had as I have reached out to validate everything and attempt to work with you.

A wikipedia article is good for anybody's career and yes, too many people are asking why are they simply refusing to work with you on an article.

I do not understand why I am having to deal with this nightmare.

I am asking you politely one more time to work with me on this.

Thank you.

Stevenbdamelin (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:

Hi,

The messages back and forth to publish a genuine factual article re me and which you are denying me and for no reason is something I simply cannot handle anymore.

Thank you for your efforts. Surely, you must understand that I need additional help now. I cannot possibly understand why your organization is doing this to me.

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes, Steve Damelin.

Stevenbdamelin (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clarification: Hi Steve, You had written above that the existing draft had been done by "my students and two colleagues", which was why I suggested that you continue on that footing (with the proviso that they would need to make a clear COI statement). In hindsight and with the above discussion, I now understand the COI between professor and grad-student would also seriously complicate things. My apologies for that flaw in my attempt to help resolve the muliple complexities here. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple straightforward explanation[edit]

Your purpose in editing WP is apparently to have an article about yourself. When people do this, it is generally is for the purpose of letting other people know about themselves, which in practice means promoting their views and advancing their career. This is contrary to the basic principles of WP. As a volunteer administrator elected to help enforce the community policies based on these principles, I consider it my obligation to prevent this.

I also urge you to consider whether your insistence upon this is not perhaps showing you in a unfavorable light. I am very willing to help people avoid this, and , if asked, I will be willing to blank the page, so your efforts in this direction and the necessarily unfavorable responses to it will not be easily visible. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenbdamelin (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. Please go ahead so a wikipedia page can be written about me like 1000's of scientists. Thank you. Stevenbdamelin (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevenbdamelin. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevenbdamelin&oldid=1042541675"