User talk:Ogcgn

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ogcgn! Thank you for your contributions. I am CambridgeBayWeather and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather, Thanks! Much appreciated! Ogcgn (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inline links and promotion[edit]

Hello! I removed a number of inline links that you presumably added to the article Roger Steinmann. One Wikipeida we are always looking to keep things neutral and avoid promoting external sites or businesses. For this reason, you edits adding inline links, for example to Steinman's hotel in Thailand, are inappropriate. Please avoid using inline links in future edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, thanks, understood, didn't know that. I'll try to fix on the weekend. Ogcgn (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding access to privately stored documents on Roger Steinmann web site?[edit]

Hello! I noticed you are have added scans of newspaper articles and personal letter that are hosted on the Roger Steinmann web site. For example, in this edit you added this "Letter of commitment" However when I go to that site, to the "film documents" page referenced in your edit, the site says "This page for authorized persons only". Care to explain how you get access to such information? Are you one of Steinmann's authorized persons? Are you collaborating with the subject, i.e discussing the article content with him? We have COI policy, so if you are connected to Steinmann in any way at all that needs to be declared very clearly. My apologies if you have already done so somewhere.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, nope, I'm not related, not his authorised person, not collaborating with him. The page was open to the public before. You may check with https://web.archive.org/. I've just started today to remove text without 3rd party references but I need ages, e.g. to put the references into the format you showed me. I'm still new here... and fighting with inconsistent edits etc. You may also check with Vexations, she/he also asked your question and I send her/him an email that time. Please give me some time, I try to fix it. Ogcgn (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I was still trying to fix the lost references but it looks like we were editing the article at the same time... I've therefore stopped now and will look after the references tomorrow. Hope we then won't edit at the same time again. I've also see that you've changed many links which are still live to the archive... would you like me to do that for the rest of the links to or should we keep that as long as the site is available? Only the film-documents page seems to be locked.Ogcgn (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty strange that you have been making hundreds of edits to one article for six weeks, and zero edits to other articles. We call that a single-purpose account. Please avoid using items hosted on Roger Steinmann's personal web site if you can. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, If you look at the days I've done the edits you'll see that it was Christmas holiday. Unfortunately, that holiday's over now. I have to work to make my live and can't spend day and night on Wikipedia. Before doing anything else, I'd prefer to fix this article first and to get this banners removed. This seems to be rather difficult. People tell me what's wrong, my concrete questions for advise however remain unanswered. For a newbee that's rather frustrating. I thought that Wikipedia is looking for contributors and encouraging experience users to help and motivate new ones. I try to comply, learn and to contribute. If Wikipedia is looking for perfect editors only, than I will probably never do more than this single piece and probably focus on other areas...Ogcgn (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear that you are either the article subject or working with him. I'd ask that you be let us know which is which. The web leaves records of what happens all over the place, and images that you inserted in the article were actually uploaded to Steinmann's web site within hours to a day of you using them. I've compiled that information and can post it to our Conflict of Interest noticeboard, or you could save us some time by being straight up about how the images made it into an article hours to a day after they were posted to his site. Our COI policy prohibits using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle, and conflicts need to be clearly disclosed. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP,

This will be a longer one, hope you’ll take the time to read it. I’ve invested the time to address your issues.

No matter how clear it might look for you, I’m neither the subject, nor I’m working for him!

In January I sent the following Email to Vexations which might give you a better insight.

“Dear Vexations,

thanks for your input on your talk page.

I'm going to strip/focus the article and see that I find some more external and independent sources. That might take a couple of days...

Hope I'm not bothering you with too much pretty obvious staff... If I do, please let me know. :)

By the way, I'm not related to Roger Steinmann. I just stayed a couple of days in his hotel and found that he's a remarkable person... doing stuff I never even thought of... (by education I'm a physicist, maybe the opposite of an artist). But I like Wikipedia and I'm frequently using it to find out things. So I thought... that's a good opportunity to learn a bit more on how Wikipedia is actually works.

Anyway, thanks for your help and looking forward for another feedback later,

Ogcgn (email) 17:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)”

In addition to that, I’d like to mention that I’m living in Cologne, about 10,000 km from the place where the subject is living. You might also track this (maybe put ERGO and Köln after my Name in Google, you won’t find much but the essential information which might answer your question). You’ll find out that I don’t need to work for the subject and don’t even work in an area which is related to the subject in any way. If you tell me your email, I’ll also send you one from my business email which might give you the evidence you miss.

Now to the process you might also track:

I wrote the article, asked an Wikipedia Administrator (who told me I can move the Article), and posted questions on the talk page (which partly has not been answered so far) and on talk:WikiProject_Switzerland, e.g.

Self-published sources, need help

Vexations has checked and added the banner. I'd be happy, if you, Vexations, or someone else can help me with this. Is it the

the facts Roger Steinmann writes about himself on his own page,
the news-paper clips and documents he has posted or
both of it?

I’ve seen Self-published sources, but to be honest, I’ve focused more on the second part Using the subject as a self-published source: "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used..."

Bullet 1.-4. looks fine to me. Is it 5.? Or is it other things?

What can I do to fix this? Can you please help?

Thanks, Ogcgn (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This This relates to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons where I read:

“Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.”

“Using the subject as a self-published source

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
the article is not based primarily on such sources.”

I can’t tell you why the documents appeared shortly before I edited the article, probably the subject likes Wikipedia as well and maybe he even knew about my intend to write an article. I found these documents when looking for sources and added them once I found them… After I added them, some got removed. Why should I add links the subject don’t want to be seen publicly when working for him. That logic I can’t follow.

I fully understand your intention and support it. I’d be happy if you understand and believe mine as well, at least give me the benefit of the doubt. I’ve started, I’ve asked for support and I try to contribute in full compliance. I’d be happy to work constructively to fix it and to reach consensus. Let’s turn from confrontation to solutions. Thanks.

P.S. I found this as well and would be happy considered a newcomer. Thanks.

"Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, advises Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves, there is a temptation - especially if apparently wrong or strongly negative information is included in such an article - to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity for the new user. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap, rather than see this phenomenon as a new editor mistake."

"Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet." You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so. For example, if a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded if it violates basic policies regarding content. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade)."

Ogcgn (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]