Markbrownnavitas

October 2020

Hello, I'm Alexandermcnabb. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing the Murdoch University page

I'm copying my response on my talk in case you don't see it.

Firstly, User:Markbrownnavitas you're the LAST person who should be editing that page. You're adding content that is not reflective of a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV is the policy on this) and not sourced, either. You'd be best to leave the page as it is - it's already been marked for deletion and is in danger of being deleted entirely, let alone your efforts to add content that just detracts from the page's value. I suggest you revert yourself and leave editing the page to editors who do not have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) as you do. Right now you're breaking lots of rules on Wikipedia and it's not helpful to anyone. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

My apololgies User:Alexandermcnabb, i had no idea Wiki was such a contentious place. I simply wanted the information about us to be accurate. I was not aware that it had to be by someone completely removed from the organisation. Im not exactly sure who would be able to add information that is accurate if not the people responsible for the organisation. Why would the page be noted for deletion? Also interesting that i received this welcome message from Wikipedia "Welcome to Wikipedia! You've joined the English-language version of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Hiya. As a COI editor, you can request edits to be made using the article's Talk page - generally best if you include the material you'd like added and a source for that material. The source should be a mainstream media outlet (not advertising or advertorial) or other notable source (academic paper, book). You'll have to bear in mind policies like NPOV, which look for an encyclopaedic tone and neutral point of view, so sentences like "Murdoch, named "Murdoch" in honour of esteemed author, philosopher and academic Sir Walter Murdoch[9], has earned an international reputation for the quality of its teaching and research over the past 35 years, as it has grown and matured." aren't going to make the cut unless you can find an independent source who says he was especially esteemed, and a source that says your international reputation is totally stellar - which is an unlikely find, TBH. The page was nominated for deletion as it was a 'stub' (a short article) with a single source and had been so since 2014, so was judged not notable by some editors. The discussion at Articles for Deletion (WP:AfD) was tending towards saving the page after I had made a number of additions to it, so if you wouldn't mind taking my advice, I'd leave things alone until the AfD process has closed, by when you will either a) have no page or b) have this page but clear of the shadow of deletion. You can request additions at any time. Anyone CAN edit Wikipedia! But you can't edit articles in which you have a direct conflict of interest - for instance, your page, your organisation's page, your dad's page. If you want to edit architecture, bicycles, nuclear physics, you can edit away - unless you are a nuclear physicist with a vested academic interest in the theorem you are adding to a page without a third party source, 'cos that would also be a COI and likely NPOV to boot. It keeps us all honest!!! For now, I'm going to revert your changes as they violate WP:COI and WP:NPOV but I do so entirely without prejudice so the page can have the best chance of avoiding deletion and so you can hopefully live to fight another day! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Rather than deleting the content, which cant all be viewed as biased surely, can i not edit it in a way that is neutral and find articles that suppot anything i say, as you have suggested. I only noticed the Wiki page when i did a search for us on google and it came up and i read it and realised it didnt paint a full or accurate picture. Some are minor word changes. Why doesnt Wiki say to me in its email, 'welcome but are you editing a page that you have a COI in?' Also, with all due respect, what makes you an authiority over what we put on this page? why do you care is probably my question? Just curious. Is thjis a job for you or just an interest?

Ok, so i see all of the edits are now gone. Surely i can make minor edits such as removing 'core' which doesnt make sense, adding in DIAC as the old campus location etc - how can they be viewed as biased? The back-end of Wiki is a new world for me - Who has authority to delete a page of us when other universities have their own Wiki page? and likely edit it themselves. Every institution ive worked wit has edited their own page.

They shouldn't!!! The word 'core' is in the source cited, BTW - so it would be hard to argue it shouldn't be in the information derived from the source. That's how Wikipedia works these days (its standards have risen astronomically) - a source has to be found and the facts from that source appended to the article in a neutral and objective way, avoiding copyright infringement and preserving the balance of facts in the article. I would honestly counsel leaving the page be for now until it has gone through AfD... You're looking at a few days!

On authority, no I have no authority - no more than anyone else on WP. Everyone's a volunteer and the whole thing operates by consensus. There are processes to manage things like arguments over content - including escalation paths to administrators, who have the power to ban and black people etc - and to answer your question, frankly, I don't care. I noticed you had been put up for deletion, thought it was wrong that a UAE university be deleted and got involved because of that. Now I'm trying to help you to save you. I'd usually be spending my time on UAE history articles!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And i appreciate your help in preventing us being deleted. Id like to work with you on ensuring the content we would like added is accurate and evidenced based. PS. the word 'core' is something the universiy have asked us to stop using, primarily as i said becuase it has no meaning.

See, that's problematic. The University might not LIKE it, but it IS the word used in the source to describe you!!! The Khaleej Times report cited [2] in the article, states: "Murdoch University Dubai is a core branch campus of Murdoch University in Perth, Australia - one of the Top 100 Young Universities in the World. They offer internationally recognized Foundation, Diploma, Undergraduate and Postgraduate degrees." So, fine, we'll drop the word core but MOST editors would argue that the change would require a source in itself. And by saying that the source is not reliable, BTW, you are in danger of negating claims of reliability for the rest of the source - which is being used right now to defend you against the AfD (Articles for Deletion) process. Things around here CAN get pretty tortological-seeming... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Khaleej times got that copy years ago from the university itself, they didnt create any of that text (and rarely do frommy experience), it was provided by the university so not exactlty relaible source to quote either way.

Markbrownnavitas, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Markbrownnavitas! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

COI and SPA

Hi Mark. Great you added some well-cited, sourced content - and the tone issues are no longer issues. However, you remain deeply COI and what's more your account is in danger of being flagged as a Single Purpose Account WP:SPA (all these caps I quote you with WP:whatever are Wikipedia policies you can search and reference/read by putting them in the search box) and WP:NOTTHERE.

I'd really, really suggest you suspend editing for now at least - perhaps someone in the AI/Cybersecurity faculty could suggest ways to improve Wikipedia for Murdoch without conflicts of interest or triggering these issues. For now, I'd honestly counsel leaving things as they are until the AfD has closed and then perhaps working out how Murdoch students might become wider contributors to Wikipedia than purely focusing on buffing the University's image. The more of that you do, the more likely it is to backfire. If you want improvements/changes, you can request they be made using the article talk page. All, clearly, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)