User talk:Zosima13

Hello, Zosima13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction

5 The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

Tips

How to write a great article

Simplified Manual of Style

Fun stuff...

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning) 04:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential COI

Hello, Zosima13. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Opus Dei, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. May I ask why you consider that I may have a Potential COI? The edits I have made have been explained in the edit summaries. We may not agree on why these were made, but I don't see why this merits being flagged as a Potential COI. If we disagree, I think it would be better that we talk about on the Talk page so that others may join and so that we can come to a consensus. Also, as I have mentioned in the Talk page of the article, I think the page needs a major rewrite (for the reasons I mentioned there). There was previous discussion on this in earlier Talk entries. If you have time, I would be grateful for any suggestions you have. Zosima13 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern of your edits is generally what we see with connected editors. Not all connections are a COI though, can you explain what youe connection to the topic is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you mean. So far, my edits to the Opus Dei article have mostly been limited to some instances that, to my judgment, are sensationalistic and unsupported by the references given. So, I can see how a pattern may arise that makes it seem that I am pushing a certain POV. I have been considering other edits concerning the numerous entries that seem to my mind to be more like endorsements and do not add anything substantive to the description and explanation of this organization. But, since I am a rather inexperienced editor, I have been carefully considering how best to approach this. I raised some of this up on the Talk page to see if others might have some suggestions, but so far, there has been no response. Perhaps that is because there doesn’t seem to be any stable editors for this article at this time. My interest in all this is that, given the current form of the article, it is difficult to get a clear sense of what Opus Dei really is. Instead, there seems to be quite a deal of back and forth between supporters and critics done in a scattered way throughout the article. I was (or maybe still am) considering reorganizing and rewriting the article, but I need time to do research and find more scholarly and reliable references. And then there is the question of how best to keep a NPOV (while making sure not to give undue weight to relevant, yet minority views), which seems a bit tricky given the controversy that this institution seems to generate. If you have any tips or advice, they would be greatly appreciated. Zosima13 (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been editing wikipedia for more than ten years an in that time don't appear to have ever made an edit to another topic and your edits don't appear NPOV they appear promotional. What is your connection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thank you for your thoughts and concerns you have expressed.

With regard to the content of my edits, I can understand that you do not consider them NPOV and that you think they are promotional. It would be helpful, though, to know what exactly you perceived as promotional and why. That might help how I make my edits. As I explained above, I am still working out how best to clean up this article. I’ve started with the first paragraph of the lede, and am working my way down through the rest of the lede and the body of the article. I’m just trying to make this article worthy of being on Wikipedia. In its present state, I find it quite unreadable. But that is my opinion. At some point, I will try to rework the more controversial aspects of Opus Dei, and I hope that the result will make these issues more comprehensible to the average reader instead of the tangle of accusations and counter-accusations that we find in the present text. It is my opinion that it is possible to present controversial topics in a considered and orderly way that respects a NPOV. My intention is to attempt this, though, given the complexity of some of these issues (to give one example, the relationship of Opus Dei and the Franco government), this will, of course, take a bit of time. So, if you could give me some time and the benefit of the doubt, I hope to allay your concerns about “Potential COI” and my capability of being able to maintain a NPOV.

Meanwhile, as I make edits, I would appreciate any feedback or objections you (and others) may have. I will also be most interested to hear from you when the more contentious topics regarding Opus Dei come up, since these are the ones that are most difficult to get right. But, if I may ask, please make them in the Talk section of the article.

At some point, though, I hope other editors become more, because this a very daunting task. I myself am just trying it out.

As for your observation that I have been editing for ten years, that is correct. But, as can be noticed, I’ve only made about 100 so far (which was probably closer to 70 when I wrote the previous message), and I still find myself spending quite a bit of time trying to figure out how to start a page, and how to use the formatting. Maybe I’m a slow learner, but I find that even after 100 edits, there is just so much to figure out. I just, for example, learned how to make lists. And, at this moment, I know how to edit an infobox, but I don’t know how to insert one into an article. As for all my edits being on just this topic, all I can say is that the log of my (few) edits shows otherwise.

If you get all the way to the end of this, thank you for your time. Sorry for being overly verbose. Zosima13 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given your connection I would advise against editing any articles about Opus Dei or related topics going forward. There is a lot of wikipedia and I'm sure you can find a few topics you like editing whih you don't have a COI with. As for adding templates has a complete collection but I personally navigate to them by googling "Wikipedia infobox person" or "Wikipedia infobox company" etc and normally the closest one pops up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some concern with COI, bring it up with the appropriate authorities. Otherwise don't use it as a way of excluding contributions. Zosima13 (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought my concerns about COI to you, thats where you're supposed to bring them... You appear to be acknowledging that you have a COI. Your contributions are not excluded, please refer back to the first post which explains how you can continue to contribute to topic areas in which you have a COI even though doing so is discouraged (but not excluded). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. We'll deal with it there. Meanwhile, since I do not think that first post applies to me, I'll continue to make contributions as I like.

Thank you, by the way, for the advice about adding templates. Zosima13 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it not apply to you? You've made it clear that you have a COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never have. Zosima13 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not have a connection to Opus Dei? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You already seem convinced that I do. So, I suspect that even if I said the truth (and said no), it wouldn't end the discussion. I don't mean to sound rude here, but there are limits to how I can phrase things. Besides, this has already been brought to the proper authorities, I think.

I did google wikipedia templates, and I found a nice template for a possible article I want to propose. Now I have to figure out how to use the template. So, thank you for helping out on that. Zosima13 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally when someone has no connection they just say "No" to begin with, they don't spend a half dozen edits dancing around the question... In my experience that happens when someone does have a connection which they are trying to get around disclosing, but then again there is a first time for everything. You're not trying to be subtle, that draft (Draft:Jesus Arellano) is also about an Opus Dei figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we should move on to some authority to resolve this. Just because I have an interest in Jesus Arellano doesn't mean I have a "connection" to Opus Dei. It might, perhaps, indicate an interest in 20th century Spanish philosophy, especially existentialism and personalism. And Opus Dei happens to have (in my opinion) a major importance in 20th century Spain. I've also made edits to Zubiri and Pareyson, who, to my knowledge are not in Opus Dei. There's some Chinese bishop in there too, but I forgot his name. But we can go on and on about this. At some point, though, I would like to get back to work on articles.

Would you be ok if we brought this to the some next level to get this disputer resolved? Isn't there some place to officially accuse people of COI? Zosima13 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I apologize, that would be Anthony Tu Shihua. Your edit history can be found her[1]. Am I missing something or had you not edited either Zubiri or Pareyson until after I opened this discussion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that’s the Chinese bishop! No, you’re correct, I just checked my history, and yes, I started editing Zubiri and Pareyson (and maybe drafting Arellano?) after you started this discussion. But, I didn’t start editing them BECAUSE of this discussion. I was already getting back into Leonardo Polo and hence my renewed Wikipedia activity. My main interest here in Wikipedia is him. My actual biggest interest is Heidegger, but there’s already so much written about him that I don’t think I can make any meaningful contribution. So, my focus right now is more on 20th century Spanish philosophy in general (and Heidegger’s influence on it), and Leonardo Polo in particular.

I apologize for such a long thread, and for sounding testy at times. I think I might have read too much into you’re reverting the change and to the discussion that ensued. It was the first time someone reverted one of my edits, and so I might have felt a bit defensive. I generally don’t like having to explain myself. Zosima13 (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context we've had issues with people related to Opus Dei trying to edit the page for years and we get the same on a lot of religious pages, for example at the same time we were talking I was also dealing with edits like this[2] over at Falun Gong. Thank you for your patience. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Falun Gong--I hadn't heard much about them since the late 1990s. I didn't know they were involved with Shen Yun (I see their bill boards all over the place). But thanks to Wikipedia, now I do!

Thank you for your patience as well. Zosima13 (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't want to put you on the spot. We don't necessarily have to bring it up to the next level. Just looking for a way to resolve this.

Also, hope you were impressed by how I used the template. Couldn't figure out how to get birth date or death date though. But I'll work on that later. Zosima13 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]