User talk:Sicroff

Welcome!

Hello Sicroff, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Gobonobo ^T ^C 18:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hinck

If you have a connection with Jon Hinck, please disclose your connection with him on your talk page. Also, please review our policy regarding editing with a conflict of interest. The page is being closely monitored and I assure you, if there is a connection, it will eventually be found. OlYeller^Talktome 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO OLYELLER21

As a wiki newbie, I'm afraid I may not be responding in proper format. In all the welter of guidelines, it is difficult to find any explanation as to how one is to respond to this kind of summons. I was looking for a form to fill out, or an email address, and only belatedly realized that all wiki communication is probably a subset of "editing."

Before addressing your suspicions, let me say that I did review carefully the page on Wiki's COI policy. The statement itself is rather porous. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I don't know or care much about Wikipedia per se. All of my outside interests are therefore more important to me than the aims of Wikipedia. I think it is convenient to have an information source like W, and I would like to contribute my expertise to anyone who might need it, but my outside interests are obviously more important in themselves (to me) than my inclination to share information about them.

What Wikipedia ought to be concerned about is not which interest is more important to the author, but whether the author has an interest that actually leads to the distortion or falsification of a story.

Having noted (to myself, in the first instance) that the Wiki definition of COI is defective, I noted also the temporizing effect of the subsequent paragraph ("Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests..."). Before undertaking the Hinck article, I also reviewed all the other articles on Maine legislators. Quite a few are transparently written by the subjects themselves. For instance, Jeffery Gifford's stub notes that he coached Pop Warner football for twenty-five years. No documentation whatsoever on that. Where would the information have come from? Seth Berry's relatively extensive article has information about his hobbies, highlights of his career as a school teacher, and a lot of other information no disinterested Wiki writer would likely have. The two newspaper articles cited for that article have virtually no corroboratory function. I could go on, but you know what I'm talking about.

So please let's not pretend that Wiki authors have no interest other than serving the aims of Wikipedia.

As for my alleged COI in compiling the Hinck article, here is my response:

I was a colleague of the subject (Jon Hinck) when we both taught ESL for Iran America Society in Isfahan. That was in the spring of 1975. It happened that Jon was from a town a few minutes from my parents' place, and when I visited them in the late summer, I also stopped by to see the Hincks. After that I lost contact with him until around 2003, when I ran across a reference to his work, which I found pretty inspiring. I dug up his address, sent him some photos from Iran, and we had a brief snail-mail exchange. Later I set up a Google alert on Hinck, so that I could follow his career. Recently I opened a wiki account, intending to do some articles on Nepal, especially Rolwaling, on which I have some expertise. (See rolwaling.com/,, mountainlegacy.org, wanderingeducators.com). As I was organizing my material on Rolwaling, I noticed that Hinck was edging toward a run against Olympia Snowe, which I think would be extremely significant politically. I researched his career online to the extent I could, and emailed him for clarifications and documentation, which he was kind enough to assist with. One area where he was especially helpful was his role in Greenpeace USA. Although I gave money ($10-25/year) to Greenpeace back in the 90s, I was not directly involved in campaigns, and had no idea of Hinck's role.

Clearly, my article on Hinck is more extensive than the write-ups of other Maine legislators. (On the other hand, the article on John Eder, whom Hinck defeated, is of comparable length, but with negligible documentation; there is no indication how the author would have known anything about Eder's bumming around and living in a solar powered shack.) I think we would be better off if authoritative and reasonably comprehensive articles were available on all office-holders. Hinck is particularly deserving of attention because of his effective environmental activism. This is not a minor figure like some candidates for national office, whose accomplishments have been largely in the area of self-promotion. Hinck's work for Greenpeace USA, as well as his service for the emerging nation of Palau, are more than just "notable": they are remarkable.

All that being said, I understand that Wiki may feel that now is the time to burnish its credibility. Perhaps you are in the process of reviewing all articles on officeholders or environmental activists. Or whatever. I would be perfectly happy if someone else wanted to take over the Hinck article. I have no personal stake at all in it, other than my hope that he will run for the Senate sooner rather than later, simply because our country needs his service.

I am concerned that Wiki's COI policy may mean that you would also have issues with my working on Nepal articles, since I have a record of promoting backpacker tourism. I hasten to add that all my efforts in that respect have been non-lucrative. On the other hand, I don't want to waste my time or yours on more articles that are going to be problematic simply because I have a prior interest not just in the subject but also in its success. I assure you that I have no fear of being publicly shamed as having what Wiki deems a Conflict of Interest. Anybody whose main interest in life is Wikipedia -- and who is not making somehow making money from it -- probably needs to get a life, or at least some real-world interests.

I thank you for your time and guidance on this matter.

Sicroff (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

OlYeller^Talktome 14:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in case you missed my response, you can find it here. Items in my talk page are archived after 14 days of inactivity so you might not have seen it. Just wanted to make sure. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HillaryMedal.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HillaryMedal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sir Edmund Hillary Mountain Legacy Medal has been accepted

Sir Edmund Hillary Mountain Legacy Medal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~Kvng (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary medal permission

Hello Sicroff. I read the discussion on Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_September_8#File:HillaryMedal.jpg so I came to drop you a line.

Sadly Wikimedia policies on copyright are very strict because of the burden placed on us by USA copyright law. Please do follow the instructions on commons:Commons:Email templates which will allow you to make a declaration to the Wikimedia Foundation that you are the copyright holder to the medal design. Then the image of the medal may be used on Wikipedia and across other Wikimedia projects. Deryck C. 10:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sicroff. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sicroff. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]