Screwjack1981

Welcome!

Hello, Screwjack1981, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Tim van Beveren, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Screwjack1981 I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia as well as content about health. [[Your edits to date are on a bit of a run about . Your first edit here had an edit note "s the expert on behalf of the German prosecutors office I personally had access to all files and evidence. The changes were made acc to the report submitted to the prosecutors office in Dec. 1999"; you created and have made many edits to the article about the book, Unfiltered Breathed In - The Truth about Aerotoxic Syndrome, and you created and have made many edits to the article about the book's author, Tim van Beveren. You also have edited the Aerotoxic syndrome article extensively. You have not made edits outside this field which makes your account a WP:SPA (please read that)

I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Screwjack1981. 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. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Tim van Beveren? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. You can reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record: I personally know Mr. van Beveren as I have worked with or "about" him in the past (without any financial compensation or other interest). As he (van Beveren) believes it would not be appropriate that he personally writes about issues where he is involved personally or as a journalist and does not have the time to accomplish this, he asked me to do so and did provide all necessary information to me. I'm from the aviation sector currently working on a PhD thesis about media related subjects with a special focus given on recent scientific research and implications on aviation. I have access to all his data, articles, study, protocols, interviews - so basically the archive that he did collect in the past and that he made available upon my request, as this is also the basis for my own scientific work. So I'm not affiliated with his company or otherwise. As I personally was not a registered user and did not consider this of any relevance, so he did pass me on an old user profile that he was apparently personally using some years ago, as this did provide the possibility to upload also pictures and other materials, rather then just working anonymously. --Screwjack1981 (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly here as his agent, representing him - that is why you are here. You have a conflict of interest with regard to him and his work and the syndrome under Wikipedia's guideline. Do you agree? We need to agree on that before we can get you on the right path. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No I do not agree. I'm not his or anybodies agent. I'm an individual with my own opinion. I work as a professional on a scientific study and thesis which has relations to the work he did as an independent journalist. Big difference as also journalistic principles and ethics apply. One is objectivity. --Screwjack1981 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick note. When discussing things on talk, please indent each post (and each paragraph of each post) by adding one or more colons in front of the comment. The Wikipedia software converts the colon into a "tab". One colon makes one tab, two colons make two tabs, etc. This sets each comment off from the others, and makes it clear what you are responding to. When the indenting gets to be too much, you reset by putting {{od}} in front of the comment, and the wikipedia software resets with an arrow

like this. Also please just type the four tildas to create your signature at the end of your comment and please don't set it off as you continue to do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, now dealing with the issue. You unambiguously have a conflict of interest as we think about that here in WIkipedia (which is not like other publications). You are here representing him - you have an external relationship that is very important to you. Please do review the actual Wikipedia guideline WP:COI (please actually do take time and read it). If you still disagree after you review that, please let me know. There is a noticeboard for COI in Wikipedia where the community weighs in on these kinds of things, and that is where we can take this if you disagree. If that is the route you wish to go (in other words, if we need to bring this to the community) there are a couple of things I need to let you know before we do that. But it is always ideal to manage things simply and locally and perhaps you will agree that you have a COI in Wikipedia after reading and considering. So please let me know. I do not expect a response right away - please take some time to consider. But please refrain from working on the articles or discussing them until this is resolved. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you please continue the discussion if you are ready? You appear to be back on line now. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I just came online, saw a bunch of different email flags in my mailbox and I think it will be for the better and for the sake of all here to erase the article, so there is nothing to bother about any longer. EditorASCs won't get a heart attack, which could be very likely with his age and the short fuse he lives on. Maybe someone else will start a new one, I simply have a job and not the time and nerves to waist my valuable time with this kindergarden here. Have a great day!--Screwjack1981 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Habe gerade gesehen, das Du den Wiki zu UNFILTERED gelöscht hast. Schade. ich hatte versucht ihn zu verbessern nachdem ich gestern den Film zum 2. mal in der Filmkunst gesehen habe. Aber offensichtlich gibt es da so ein paar "junge und alte wilde", die nicht wissen was sie sinnvolles mit ihrer Zeit anfangen sollen und sich mega-wichtig vorkommen. Nun ja, kann Dich verstehen, ist halt ein richtiges Tollhaus hier geworden, zuviele (Möchtegern-) Häuptlinge und zu wenig Indianer. Es scheint jedenfalls das van beveren hier ein sehr heisses Eisen ist, oder das ist mal wieder der lange Arm von "interessierten Gruppen", die da am Werk sind. Würde mich auch nicht wundern. Servus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medidog1951 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't have the right to just blank it. And by the way I read German. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Good Morning Jytdog: Oh good for you! Dann können wir ja in Deutsch weitermachen. Weisst Du, das Beste ist wir lassen das hier. ich habe nämlich keine Lust Ärger zu bekommen, weder mit der Produktionsfirma noch mit dem Regisseur. Hatte halt gedacht es wäre gut wenn hier auch was darüber steht, aber offen gesagt steht sich hier jeder selbst nur im Weg und auf den Füssen. Das bringt nichts ausser Rivalität und Trivialität. Und deshalb lösche ich auch das, was ich begonnen habe und wir gehen schön zurück auf Square One.

--Screwjack1981 (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Medidog. Da magst Du recht haben, aber es ist einfach hirni sich hier mit eingebildeten Möchtegernen rumzuschlagen, weil irgendjemand in dem Artikel rumpfuscht, der keine Ahnung hat. habe Deinen Exkurs mit Jytog gelesen und stimme völlig überein. an keiner Stelle äussert er irgendeine fundierte Kritik oder verbessert gar was. er spielt sich zum Pseudo Admin auf und setzt den Artikel auf die Verunglimpfungsversion eines notorischen Skeptikers zurück, der erst gar nicht mit einem in eine Austauscht tritt weil alles eh "bogus" ist. Ich denke es dauert nicht lange, dann sieht das hier auch TVB und ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass er das toleriert. Er ist wie ich das mitbekommen habe eh schon ziemlich bedient von Wiki weil sie alle die Fotos die er dann einzeln mit Mails freigegeben hat, einfach gelöscht haben. Er hatte mir auch heftig abgeraten hier was zu schreiben, weil es so chaotisch ist. Deine Änderung fand ich übrigens gar nicht schlecht, aber verschwende hier nicht Deine Liebesmüh. Das hat keinen Sinn. Die machen eh was die wollen und es gibt in der Tat zuviel (möchtegern-) Häuptlinge.

--Screwjack1981 (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Perhaps a kind administrator will put this article out of its misery, eh? Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Very good idea Jytdog. The best contribution I have read from you for the last days! - So mission accomplished?

--Screwjack1981 (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no. I had hoped to work with you to clarify your COI and help you to see that you are very close to the subject and perhaps not objective and teach you how we work here. I have also been trying to work with the editor with whom you were edit warring to get him to see that he has Advocacy issues and is too hot, and wanted to teach him how this place works, and my hope was that the two of you could go back to working on these articles, but this time like Wikipedians do. I was very unhappy that Medidog came busting in to make lots of changes and I tried to slow him down too and teach him how this place works. But he had no interest either.

This place is not a Mad Max world, but editors pursuing WP:THETRUTH make it into that. There is a beautiful vision here of people who may be very different, working together, dedicated to Wikipedia and its mission first and foremost (not to whatever they see as The Truth) and editing based on policies and guidelines, together. The community put those policies and guidelines in place over the years, to help editors get along. That is why they exist. But both you and the other editor with whom you were edit warring, and now Medidog too, have been abusing Wikipedia by using it to pursue your agendas, and you and the editor with whom you were edit warring have been abusing each other.

None of that is what we are about here and it is so sad to see. But so it goes sometimes, despite our best efforts to teach new editors. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: I was reading through your conversation with Medidog. He is perfectly right in his assessment that people - out of whatever motive mess up things they do not know because they simply do not know anything about the subject in contrast to editors who have seen the film. I have no objections to the changes he made and I think he was trying at best to improve the article - you allege to have a COI issue. I don't know where you are coming from or what your profession is in real life but I happen to teach and I happen to work as a journalist and we have our own very strict principles that we follow in order to maintain objectivity. This applies especially for Germany as otherwise you find yourself very soon in court. See I really do not want to waist any more time here as I have a teaching job and enough to do to work on my PhD, which is far more important than an article about - what I thought is an important film abut an important subject done by another journalist I happen even to know. He is not my buddy nor my boss and actually he tried to talk me out when I asked him if he could provide me pictures and materials from the film so it could be incorporated into a nice article that gives the reader a clear impression what this work is about. But apparently he was spot right. So the world, the www and wikipedia can very well live without this contribution. the film has its own website and if someone wants to know anything about it it pops up as no 1 when you google it. So thank you for your time and efforts but let's terminate this here. Maybe someone else who has seen the film and deems it appropriate to be mentioned here will give it another try. I'm out of it and I will do my work and spend my time on things that I get paid for in the real world. I object that I was abusing Wikipedia as I do not follow any agenda. This is a clear no go. I agree that I got fed up by somebody just vandalizing my article with nonsense and outdated views that are - as I can prove - not up to date and not reflecting the current state of research and its findings on this subject. And he did that without following any principle of any communication as he did simply not communicate with me at all, despite several attempts made from my side. So this infantile stubbornness is something I really have a problem to deal with, especially if it is paired with pseudo knowledge. This editor will never become convinced as he is caught in his mindset, so it is a waist of time. It would be easier to make a camel walk through a needle eye. Though I fully respect different opinions and views on a subject, but I'm quite allergic to ignorance. So again thank you, I think you know what you contributed to this escalation and maybe it is a nice lesson for all of us. I got a good impression how Wiki works and I will use it now even more critical or rather not at all.

--Screwjack1981 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)