Talk:An Experiment with Time

Citation

I removed a citation needed template, without first considering the possibility that the template was referring to the statement made about the text, not the text itself. At any rate, this entry is completely uncited, and there appears to be no reason to single out this one sentence among many. -Jmh123 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Related story?

I was wondering if there was any relation between this concept and the time traveling protagonist of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. Jamal Wills (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Very likely, but how to prove it unless Vonnegut mentioned the connection? Another possible influence is on C. S. Lewis, who used similar concepts of time in Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce. Dunne's ideas are quite correct (ok, that's just original research), so it's no surprise that many writers and philosophers have had similar ideas. DavidCooke (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am crazy?

Shouldn't serialism be in lowercase? It's not a proper noun, right? Kortoso (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Dunne himself capitalised it. Some commentators, such as J. B. Priestley, followed his example while others, such as Anthony Flew added double-quotes, as "Serialism". I have not seen it in any wider context to indicate other theories besides Dunne's, so we probably should in fact take it as a proper noun. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Subject of the book

The book is as much about Dunne's precognitive dreams as it is about Time. So too is the wider perception of it. The article text seeks to make this clear. If it is not clear to you in spite of that, please discuss your concerns here, before attempting to airbrush stuff out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The infobox should be kept as simple as reasonably possible. An irritating feature of the infoboxes of many articles about books is that they seek to cram as many things as possible into the "subject" field, sometimes as many as half-a-dozen or more items. It makes sense to stick to the main topic only. However, I am not planning to make any more edits to the article just now. I'll read the book soon (I managed to find a secondhand copy recently) and reconsider the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that. However what you and I think the book says is a red herring - here on Wikipedia we must see it through the eyes of reliable sources, a selection of which are cited throughout the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

To give just one example. In his review of the book for Nature, Hyman Levy remarks that, "There are two distinct portions to this book which ought to be dealt with separately, and the author practically does so. In the first part the startling experimental facts [for dream precognition] are described.... The theory [of time and consciousness] must wait...." (Hyman Levy; "Time and Perception: An Experiment with Time. By J. W. Dunne", Nature, 119, No. 3006, 11 June 1927, pp847-848.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)§

Narnia

It is a dangerous thing to promote one's own work on Wikipedia. Nevertheless I have boldly used my role as an WP:EXPERT to make this edit, referencing a recent peer reviewed paper of mine. If you feel that this is premature or otherwise unwise, I trust that you will revert and discuss per WP:BRD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

See also section

Steelpillow, I find this edit by you, removing a link to Irréversible from the see also section, unreasonable. The article mentions An Experiment with Time. Saying that you want to keep the see also list "short, significant and contemporary" is no explanation for removing the link. The list of see also items is short even with Irréversible, and the link is "significant". In fact it was much more "significant" than any of the other items in the "see also" section (Dreamtime, Charles Howard Hinton, Modal realism, and P. D. Ouspensky), since none of those articles even mentions Dunne or An Experiment with Time. Finally, I do not even know what you mean by "contemporary". There is no rule that items in the "see also" section have to concern events that occurred only in the last few years, and such a requirement would be absurd (by the way, how does Ouspensky count as "contemporary?). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That is precisely the opposite of what the MOS:SEEALSO guideline tells us. It actually says; The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. It adds that Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgement and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. The problem with adding links to fictional mentions is that they tend to multiply and it becomes a fanboi playground. So they have to be pruned back. Topics that are often discussed alongside Dunne in mainstream literature are obviously of greater significance to the average reader and there are quite enough of them to maintain a sensibly-sized list. By "contemporary" I mean contemporary with the same referent as the other two adjectives in the series, i.e. Dunne's book. What was missing from the list was a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, for each. I will add these and I would ask you in future to read our relevant policies and guidelines for yourself and not need me to do it for you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Topics that are directly related to the topic of the article should obviously take precedence over those that are not. That indirectly related items are acceptable does not mean that they take precedence over directly related items, such as Irréversible. Your suggestion that the inclusion of the Irréversible link makes the "see also" list too long is clearly false. With that inclusion, the "see also" list would comprise four items only, which patently is not too many. Your claim that references to fictional items "tend to multiply" and become "a fanboi playground" is made without evidence and I see no reason whatever to believe that it is correct. You have removed a clearly appropriate and desirable link on totally hypothetical and specious grounds. My response would be that if too many fiction-related items are added, then one could discuss cutting them back. At this time, such a problem does not exist. There is therefore no reason to remove the link to Irréversible, which I will restore. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"Topics that are directly related to the topic of the article should obviously take precedence over those that are not." is just your opinion, it is absolutely not borne out by the guideline I just quoted. If a topic is directly relevant and worth linking to then it should probably be in the main text. The whole point of the See also section is to link to less directly-related topics, it is not a dumping ground for fan links that have no place there. I have collected over forty references to Dunne in fiction and a dozen claims that I have yet to check out. A good many of of those must have Wikipedia articles. Only those which reliable independent sources verify as significant to Dunne's work should be mentioned, the rest are just WP:FANCRUFT here. You have provided no such third-party RS to lift Noe's film out of the pile. Allowing it to stay would open the door to an unreasonable number of similar cruft links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You state, "If a topic is directly relevant and worth linking to then it should probably be in the main text." Sure, if there happens to be text about the topic that can be cited in the main text of the article. If not, then it is fine to place it in a see also section. The claim that a directly related item cannot be in the see also section is downright bizarre. WP:SEEALSO says nothing of the kind. Your view that only subjects that "reliable independent sources verify as significant to Dunne's work should be mentioned" appears to be simply made up; again it has no basis whatever in the WP:SEEALSO, which states, "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." If an article deals with An Experiment with Time, it is perfectly appropriate to link to it. As for your claim that allowing the link to stay "would open the door to an unreasonable number of similar cruft links", well, no. You provided no evidence of that and there is no reason to believe it. It is utterly unreasonable to remove the link due to purely hypothetical concerns based on no evidence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that "a directly related item cannot be in the see also section", please do not misrepresent me. About twenty other mainspace articles reference the book in one way or another. That is too many to include here. Your film article is nothing special; it makes one peripheral reference to the book and that is all, it is trivial. Neither of us will convince the other, we need to widen this discussion. I have posted a request at WP:TO. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

On this one, I rather tend to agree with Steelpillow. The reference made in Irréversible is not a central part of the work, just something a character happens to be reading in the film, so more of a passing mention. I don't think that's enough of a nexus to really justify a place in the See Also section. If this work were more central to the film, maybe, but that's just not a close enough linkage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Steelpillow, if you write something like, "The whole point of the See also section is to link to less directly-related topics", then that does have the effect of implying that a directly related topic is somehow inappropriate, which is a strange and entirely baseless view. I'm happy to respect Seraphimblade's third opinion, however, so that's the end of the discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Philip Jose Farmer (and COI)

An IP editor keeps trying to add their fave author to the list of major literary figures whose works Dunne influenced. Per WP:BURDEN, they need to cite a reliable sources that Farmer is significant enough, and was influenced just as the fans would have us believe, but the editor has been unable to produce such RS. Farmer stays off this article until such time as we can verify the claim, per WP:VERIFY. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Farmer is a significant SF author, but what is needed is an independent source that gives significant coverage to a connection between The Lovers and An Experiment with Time. (The article on the novel discusses it but that section doesn't cite independent sources.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, I have some 72 confirmed references to Dunne's theory in one fictional tale or another, from Poul Anderson to Robert Charles Williams (no X-Z names yet). Of these, only a handful have been treated as significant by reliable literary critics. We cannot just have a fans' beauty contest here; some minor "Look! It's true!" is not enough. It has to be a reputable discussion of the literary significance of Farmer's reference. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you're arguing with me, but I agreed with you...? Schazjmd (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I am agreeing with you. I just wanted to expand on it a little, for the benefit of our IP edit warrior. My apologies for not making that clearer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for misreading! I was concerned that I hadn't communicated properly. All good. Schazjmd (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Come on, guys... This is not that hard... It seems to me that if a novel references "Dunne", "Dunnology", "Serialism", etc... (Plus the context makes total sense...) that ought to be "reference" enough for the straightforward fact that the British crackpot known as J.W. Dunne (the "father of Serialism") is the one being cited. But at the request of a persnickety editor I DID provide an additional citation (a couple of weeks ago): Farmer, Philip José (Spring 1953), "Lovers and Otherwise" in Fantastic Worlds, Vol. 1, No. 3; Reprinted in Farmer, Philip José (2006; edited by Paul Spiteri), Pearls from Peoria, Subterranean Press, pp 735-744. Yes, it's the same author talking in an interview about Dunne, Serialism and his incorporation of them into his fictional story. Is an additional "independent source" beyond the author himself needed to verify the simple fact that he was influenced by Dunne? It seems to me that the author is the ultimate authority on that. So, this should not be a problem irrespective of your opinion of Farmer "fans" or mine of Dunne "fans".... So much for "connection" or "influence". As to "significance", Farmer was the 19th SFWA Grandmaster, so QED. And as to Dunne's significance in the novel, he is not just mentioned. Farmer constructed an entire fictional religion around Serialism which all the human characters in the book adhere to. So, gimme a break, please. Valerius Tygart (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You have to provide an independent source to verify the literary significance. Note that the other mentions are all supported by citations of independent and peer-reviewed literary publications. This is required by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and is no reflection on individual editors. Please WP:NPA avoid personal attacks, or you may find that sanctions are taken against your account. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: “Please… avoid personal attacks”? Like “a fans' beauty contest” and “our IP edit warrior”… Yes, I think I can avoid such… Are you referring to “persnickety”? My dictionary: “over particular about trivial details”, “fastidious”, “snobbish”, “pretentious”… Sounds pretty descriptive… Or obvious… I don’t know you so perhaps I’m wrong in my initial impressions… Oh, well…

You demand “an independent source to verify the literary significance”?? The work in question (The Lovers by PJF, in case you’ve forgotten) has garnered the following: (1) Won PJF the Hugo Award for "Best New SF Author or Artist" in 1953…(His competition that year: Philip K. Dick, Robert Sheckley, Algis Budrys, etc…) (2) The respected Encyclopedia of Science Fiction says that The Lovers "burst onto the sf scene" and "gained instant acclaim when it” appeared…. (3) SF historian Sam Moskowitz in 1965 profiled PJF as one of the 22 top living SF authors; furthermore The Lovers was the work that “broke through the sex taboo in the science-fiction magazines”… (Moskowitz, Sam (1965), Seekers of Tomorrow: Masters of Modern Science Fiction; Hyperion, pg 163). (4) Per Gary K. Wolfe it was "one of the most spectacular debuts in the history of American science fiction"… (5) Per Publisher’s Weekly: “a landmark book”… (6) Robert Silverberg in 2014 called it “a game-changing novella” … “a trailblazer, a pioneering work”… “the science fiction field was never the same after The Lovers. With his very first story, Philip Jose Farmer had launched a revolution” ((Feb 2014). "Rereading Philip José Farmer". Asimov's Science Fiction. 38 (2): 6–9.) These are the citations that I could throw together quickly.

As you can see, The Lovers is something of a legend in the SF community… Certainly, it well and truly launched PJF’s career…

A housekeeping note: you state that the “other mentions” are all “peer-reviewed literary publications”. They are not. They are the opinions of the individual reviewers or commentators only. The term “peer-reviewed” does not appear in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines although you claim that “this is required”. This is not the New England Journal of Medicine we are talking about.

A final note… Not personal, I assure you… You hang on the standard of a “reputable discussion of the literary significance” (your words)… And yet we are talking about an obscure British occultist and crank (J.W. Dunne) who believed that in his dreams (& yours & mine) he could visit the remote past and the far future (for real! Not science fiction!) Scientists & philosophers reject him (From the Wikipedia articles on him & his first book: “the majority rejected his infinite regress as logically flawed”…”almost universally judged to be logically flawed and incorrect”…”no scientific evidence for either dream precognition or more than one time dimension and his arguments do not convince”) So, crackpot he was and obscure he is: Google J.W. Dunne (~35k hits), google Philip Jose Farmer (~ 207K hits), google Philip José Farmer (~472k hits)... "Respectable"... he was not. My point? How ridiculous is it to debate whether PJF is “worthy” to be mentioned in an article about JWD?

Listen Steelpillow, I think you’ve had your say by now… Let’s let other editors weigh in … After a substantial number have done so, I will go with the consensus conclusion… Meantime, I am reinstating my original edit so all can see what we are deliberating about... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have left a comment to Steelpillow here [1]. This user is probably the most educated person on Dunne in the world. He's done decades of research into Dunne and has recently published a 560 page book about Dunne. He also has a website defending him but he doesn't disclose any of this. It is misleading to new users like the IP above. I see a possible issue of WP:OWNERSHIP here. Most of Dunne's article and this one was written by this user but he should allow other users to edit here without fussing over every edit or detail others make. As you say there needs to be a consensus about such content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the heads up, there. Please note that it was I who started this discussion, in order to build consensus. Valerius Tygart claims above to have cited some source in an earlier edit, but I see none previous in the page history since a year ago, when they added this same fan post without any citation.[2] Was it perhaps in this edit by the IP editor, following a reversion by Schazjmd? This, together with the similar behaviour and style and continuity of argument, make me wonder whether we have an undeclared sock here, one who has just given themself away. I'd suggest this be followed up and the truth outed. But perhaps there is a simple explanation? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Nice attempt at distraction, but there is no sockpuppetry here. I usually edit as an anon (66.44.9.23) and logged in here only when you began your edit warring. (I strongly suspect you know that perfectly well & are being disingenuous.) The real issue, apparently, is your fixation d'amour with the subject of the article, which is ... a problem. Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Then I might gently suggest that, just as it was suggested to me that I post a COI note on my user page, you might want to post an IP editing note on yours - you wouldn't want anybody to make the mistake of counting you and your IP alias as two voices in building consensus, whether here or elsewhere, would you? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You obviously haven’t seen my user page. Not that you’d be missing much, but had you taken the trouble, you’d see this…

AnonA majority of this user's edits have been (& continue to be) anonymous.

…which was posted roughly a decade ago.

BTW, editing anonymously is not a WP:COI. What would be the “external relationship” that triggers the COI? That I am biased in favor of other anons? Of course, it could be used to cover for a COI (...such as your’s, for example).

Also BTW, nice distraction…again. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend that you assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of deliberate distraction. For the benefit of others reading this, the userbox is buried in a wall of text way down the page and is too easy to miss, as I did. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Valerius Tygart: "any desire for actions that would run contrary to the authority of the Sturch are desires for a pseudofuture" does not make a plot based on Serialism. Or does it ? Serialism is a dream about pseudofutures ? --Askedonty (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Does not make a plot based on Serialism"... Not sure what you're asking. In the novel, all humans are under the thumb of the "Sturch" (State/church), a tyranny based on "dunnology", a fictional religion based on Dunne's (non-fictional, but very silly) "Serialism"... In the novel, any form of heresy (opposition to the political & religious authorities) is termed a "pseudofuture" ... "We know how things will turn out, but you're maliciously pretending otherwise"... Or something to that effect... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to be denying it's a rather good point he's making, nor of its visible scale either. But, regarding Dunne as a material, he is giving on it a comment, not producing a derivative.

I just wouldn't want to be speaking about it without showing the analogy with 1984 (novel) for a context. It's a bit of a reason why we would be howling at it I guess --Askedonty (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So do you support the inclusion of the edit in the article? Or no? Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't want it. That would lead some to see Dunne distantly the originator of the Riverworld theme, which would be quite wrong. Farmer's concretely a star. --Askedonty (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether PJF's The Lovers should be listed among several authors' works as having been subject to the "Literary influence" (title of the section) of Dunne & his book An Experiment with Time (i.e., Serialism). It seems, based on internal & external evidence, that The Lovers certainly was so influenced. But Steelpillow believes that it should be excluded because PJF is a trivial or insignificant writer, not up to his standards. If I understand you correctly Askedonty, you think it should be excluded because PJF is too good a writer (too original, too much a "star") to be associated with Dunne. You agree with Steelpillow, but for the exact opposite reason! Do I have that right? Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What I know about The Lovers does not contradict Steelpillow on any point. It's merely an other angle. As a beginner's novel, associating it in all exclusivity with a special theory is tainting the reputation of its author under its very unique premices. Where Steelpillow's, even the same regarding perhaps 71 other authors, I have no other idea if perhaps a young author cited one name to add glitter and connivence with an initially limited set of readers. --Askedonty (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then... Crystal clear... Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be entirely honest, your text is not really threatening PJF's global image as it stands now and you're making your point quite well in making him one of the 70+ properly. What's bothering me is having Lovers pushing Philippa Pearce where she can't be expected to get much expanded. I see it as a deficit in balance somehow. This will lead to a reaction, bound to swallow Farmer away somehow, in my opinion. --Askedonty (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There is now a clear consensus of three editors who have both stated their opposition to the mention of Farmer here, and have each deleted the material from the article.[3],[4], [5]. Just one editor refuses to accept any argument against and persists in repeatedly restoring it (in breach of WP:3RR - now warned). The consensus is clear: the material has to go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hold your horses, Steelpillow… There most definitely is not consensus on this…

Of the three editors you cited…

• One, yourself, has serious issues of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:COI that have yet to be adjudicated formally… As to WP:3RR, you yourself reverted a good faith edit at least seven times by my count (on 29 Dec, 24 Feb & 1, 7, 18, 21 & 26 Mar), so that is an issue too… Consequently, your continued participation as a legitimate “voting member” in this deliberation has been seriously compromised. In the words of another editor, you “should allow other users to edit here without fussing over every edit or detail others make.... there needs to be a consensus about such content.”
• The second has, as I understand it, formally withdrawn from the discussion despite your pinging him to persuade him to side with you in this dispute. He casts no vote by his own decision, although earlier he seemed at least partially persuaded in my direction.
• The third has expressed a preference that seems to coincide with your own.

However…

• A fourth editor, whom you fail to mention, has expressed a preference that seems to coincide with mine.

So far as I can see today, and not counting you or me, the tally is one “yea”, one “nay”… This hardly constitutes the “substantial number” of editors to arrive at a “consensus conclusion” as I proposed earlier.

At the very least, the OWNERSHIP & COI issues need to be ironed out before any final resolution. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Psychology Guy: I'd be interested to see your take (or another experienced user's) on these editor issues. I am certainly not clear how editors who reverted Tygart can be claimed to be supporting them, or that you can be. Note that I was led to believe that I was reverting two separate IP editors as well as our Tygart, all over a long period and all of whom refused to open a discussion on their addition (preferring to conduct it in their edit comments), so I opened this one. I stopped editing the article at that point, though I see no reason to exit this discussion as Tygart insists. OTOH, Tygart has reverted two other editors since then and is wholly unrepentant about it. Is it time for WP:AN/I yet? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Steelpillow... Just so we all know where we stand, let me ask you a direct question: I'm puzzled by your statement "I stopped editing the article at that point"... Now, given that you have a self-admitted COI regarding Dunne-related articles; given that you have shown a propensity toward "ownership" behaviors in the past; given that your COI involves a potential to benefit monetarily from your editing of such articles (flattering portrayals of Dunne, plus references to your book, lead to greater book sales, etc)... [Mind you, I'm not accusing you of doing this intentionally, but the potential here for abuse is very obvious... Also, you did not self-declare a COI until you were publicly prompted to do so...] Given all this, do you pledge to step back & refrain from editing Dunne-related articles from this point on? [And, mind you, this does not preclude you from participating in lively discussions on the talk pages... But you would do so as the author of "The Man Who Dreamed Tomorrow: The Life of J.W. Dunne", not as a rando, unbiased editor... Rather, you simply will not edit the article itself...] If your answer to this question is in the affirmative, we will proceed with discussions in a whole new (and happier) light... Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that you are talking 90% nonsense with a smattering of fact woven in, no I would not. See WP:EXPERT for a more balanced view of reality, for example; "Subject-matter experts are well-equipped to help articles achieve a truly neutral point of view by identifying ... places where ideas are over- or under-emphasized," - such as the significance of his influence on a certain Mr. Farmer, perhaps. But I have to thank you for plugging my very recent book. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Since I believed I was being 100% accurate (I stuck very strictly to the facts as I know them, without elaborating or speculating), perhaps you can enlighten me & others as to where I went wrong. (One thing I didn't say, but probably should have, is that you are not only a Dunne biographer, but also a promoter of Dunne and his philosophy by the medium of your website.) Given your disappointing answer, we will need to await the aforementioned “substantial number” of editors to arrive at a consensus on the Farmer issue. The COI flag will need to proceed on a separate track. I’ll just remind you of the caution in the words of COI wikipolicy: “COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts”. I'll add that COI editing surely includes repeated COI reverting & blanking of edits not up to the self-devised "standards" of a conflicted "gatekeeper". Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

NB: See also this relevant sidebar discussion. Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)