Ulf Dunkel

Welcome!

Hello, Ulf Dunkel, 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 ICalamus, 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! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ICalamus

The article ICalamus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of ICalamus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ICalamus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICalamus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia; username issue

Hi Ulf Dunkel. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with regular editing. Your edits to date are all about the invers software company and circumcision, two issues that are important to a real world person named Ulf Dunkel.

With respect to the WP:USERNAME policy, specifically WP:IMPERSONATE, would you please review that section and take one of the actions advised there? If you don't we may need to soft-block this account until the issue can be resolved. Thanks.

If you do happen to be the real world Ulf Dunkel, 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. This is a separate but possibly related issue to the one above.

Hello, Ulf Dunkel. 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, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the 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 which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, 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 and advocacy in Wikipedia is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. COI editing is a subset - a specific kind - of advocacy editing. Please do read WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:YESPOV, each of which are policy, and the helpful essay on advocacy, WP:ADVOCACY, with regard to non-COI advocacy in Wikipedia.

With regard to COI per se, as in academia, COI is managed here in English Wikipedia 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 want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest or are an advocate in the real world; 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. As mentioned above, you are editing here under the name of a real world person, and once we resolve the IMPERSONATE issues, that will be somewhat resolved, but we would still need you to explicitly declare your relationship with invers with respect to iCalamus article, if there is one. Would you please disclose any such relationship?

After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the COI issue, Jytdog, which I wasn't really aware of. Always posting things on the web with my real name, I of course expose myself to such conflicts which I now understand. I could simply have been doing all my WP work with some fake name or pseudonyme, right? I am the "real-world Ulf Dunkel" who is the owner of invers Software. What could I do to solve the COI but keep the articles which were requested by people who know me for my competence in these topics? Any help is really appreciated. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making the disclosure. No one should ever question your subject matter expertise - all that matters in Wikipedia is what we call "clue" - namely following the policies and guidelines in everything you write on talk pages and in articles. It takes time to acquire clue, which everybody here understands. I will say more about that in a bit... but first let's finish the COI stuff.

So you have a COI for your company, as we define that in Wikipedia, and to the extent that want to work on topics here in WP where you are an advocate in the RW, please be very mindful of the two policies and essay I mentioned above. If that advocacy has led you into conflict with anyone in the realworld, please be mindful of WP:BLPCOI as well.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Ulf Dunkel. Just something simple like: "I own Ulf Dunkel and own invers Software which makes iCalamus and have a conflict of interest with regard to those topics." would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the company (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

I added a tag to the iCalamus article's talk page, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes (too late for iCalamus I know); and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:iCalamus - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. You can also add a {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the iCalamus article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss.

And to just to roll back around to the "clue" thing -- I have provided an as-brief-as-possible overview of the policies and guidelines here: User:Jytdog/How. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, you told me that "there is a link at 'click here' in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request." I didn't find anything like "click here" but I guess you talk about the link "You may 'request corrections or suggest content', [...]", right? When I click on it, it opens a new page entitled "Editing Talk:ICalamus (new section)". Did you mean that? If so, I understand that I should enter all portions of the iCalamus article there which need to be peer reviewed. As I always try to write Wikipedia content in the most objective way possible, I wonder if I should copy the whole iCalamus article there? Thank you in advance for more help on this. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the template changed. Yes, the link is at "'request corrections or suggest content" and yes the "new page" is an edit window with a new section all teed up for you. (Same thing you get, if you click the "new section" tab, actually. Again the template has changed - it used to open a section with the {{request edit}} template embedded for you). Don't worry about the whole article at this point - folks will be reviewing it in due course. Please just use talk page to suggest changes to it. Thanks for being so agreeable to working in the conflict management system, rudimentary as it is.  :) Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)