User talk:Richard Keatinge/Archives/2011/March 2011

{{Chronological talk archive|%F %Y}

Whilst doing some research on bike helmets for my daughter, I came across this website. I note that you've cited this website, and made a lot of edits to Bicycle helmet and Bicycle helmet laws. I assume this is you and believe one of your colleagues who is also an administrator here has done the same. May I ask if you have declared a potential conflict of interest with your advocacy in this area? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to declare that I have no interest that undermines the mission of Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I noticed that on the dicussion page of Bycicle helmet laws, you stated "perhaps better suzanne10". Was that a suggestion for me to do something? Please understand that this is my first time using the wikipedia let alone putting an article on it. I am currently reading a journal titles "The effect of bicycle helmet legislation on bicycling fatalities and hope to add some info from that. Suzanne10 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Suzanne10, I'll respond on the talk page of Bicycle helmet laws. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was your use of a cite from your website to rubbish and thence remove another cite. WP:V not WP:TRUTH. Again my question was whether you had declared any potential conflict of interest with your advocacy in this area? From WP:COI "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." The latter part could be called into question in this case. I really do think you and your colleague should declare a potential COI. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't. Nor does BHRF need to worry about my interest in Wikipedia. As you may have noticed, the aims coincide; both spread soundly-based, well-referenced information. Neither of them pays me anything, and on BHRF I'm just one of the editorial board, not an editor of the site. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When editing and professional interests collide, then any potential COI should be declared IMHO. This is not an accusation, more rather that it could avoid any accusations of impropriety later. You rubbished a source based on a paper from an organisation whose editorial board you sit on. Surely you can see this could be called into question. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster, I am afraid there is little chance of your being seen as an honest broker in this: it looks very much like a grudge hangover from the Gibraltar case. Richard's interest in cycle safety predates BHRF (and Wikipedia) by a good number of years - in addition to being a doctor he is well known in professional cycle safety circles in the UK and has been interviewed on radio about it. It's not a COI, it's a case of an expert editing an area of expertise. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this be seen as a grudge ? I have politely suggested that someone declare their interests for the avoidance of a COI accusation. And I would suggest that someone else does as well. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe it as an "interest", but I'm perfectly happy to have my various involvements made clearer. (Public they already are - that's why I edit under my real name, and you're not the first one to have noticed.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was all I was asking. It would avoid the potential for an unwarranted accusation. I would suggest your colleague does as well. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name a source to support your revert? Do you personally have access to any sources? Do you have any domain knowledge whatsoever? I note you have reverted yet again without explaining your objections or engaging in talk. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pls note my request for a self-revert, having checked contribution history until reverting today, Imalbornoz had not edited since 12 March. That edit has been uncontroversial for nearly a week now and it seemed to be a new consensus text given the lack of substantive objections raised. I note also you and Imalbornoz have re-introduced POV material but have not re-added the POV tag. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you prefer to edit war to impose a text that you have never even seen the sources for, I would again ask you to self-revert. You must know your position is not sustainable under wikipedia's policies. I ask you directly, are you prepared to self-revert? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do have access to sources. See the talk page for the rest of the argument; I find your position and actions increasingly bizarre and I can only suggest that we get outside opinion. I will re-add the dispute tag though. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the bad faith attacks, are you saying you now have a copy of Jackson rather than relying on 3rd hand excerpts prepared by other editors? Do I take that as a refusal to self-revert? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reluctantly reverted as it seems clear you do not intend to self-revert. I have initiated a discussion in the talk page and hope you will engage in that process. Please do not engage in further accusations of a bad faith nature. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]