Steve from NYU

July 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Adrian David Cheok, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Even if we've met a website maintainer and feel like we can guess how they'd update something if they updated it today, we shouldn't step in and do that ourselves. Wait for the update and use the latest published figure until then. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Palsberg to update his website, if that's what just happened! --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Steve from NYU. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Adrian David Cheok, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Steve from NYU. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Steve from NYU|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not a paid consultant or editor in any way. I have zero relationship with the subject Adrian David Cheok. I am simply interested in the subject because my field of research at NYU is augmented reality so I have been following the subject's work over the years (and many other computer scientists). To state categorically I am not being paid and have no relationship with the subject Adrian David Cheok

Neutrality

We get it -- you want to highlight Cheok's right-wing politics. But please remember that Wikipedia values neutrality over almost all other qualities. Please do not add conclusions about Cheok's politics that are not explicitly stated in reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right, my conclusion about the citations may not be the conclusion of others. I'll remove it from the top part of Adrian David Cheok - Thank you @WikiDan61:

"Weak willie"

I assumed the phrase quoted by the newspaper source was a mild playground insult, showing that Cheok was being dismissive of his critics. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)