I welcome your collaboration on articles. But please understand that there is a difference between POV/bias editing and writing about anything you have a financial connection to our where you have a stake in or stands to benefit from such relationship, which is a conflict of interest. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Here is what I have noticed. You registered in 2006. From December 29, 2008 to February 13 of 2015 you made no edits. For seven years you had no interest in Wikipedia until you made one edit to the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope article and then stopped editing again until this month when you made an edit to remove a declaration of employment at the Canada France Hawaii Telescope on Mauna Kea, from your user page.[1].
If you are currently employed at that facility, your edits to the article constitute conflict of interest editing. You should not be editing any of the subjects you have edited this month, including the Thirty Meter Telescope.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, it is best to use the talk page to convince other editors of your suggestions to content on the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope article. As for the articles connected to the Mauna Kea observatories, as an active member of the Mauna Kea observatories staff, I believe that constitutes the same COI and believe you should not be making further edits to those articles directly either.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While your recent edits may be questionable, clearly you are not an experienced editor from the history. Less than 100 edits total. You should feel welcome to continue addressing your concerns on any of the relevant talk pages and I will continue to look into anything specific that may concern you or explain the reason for the inclusion of the content, the source used, page located for the claim etc.. Also, you have no COI to edit articles on the general subject of telescopes, observatories and the like, as long as you are not directly involved with any of the subjects you write about. Wikimedia Foundation has recently changed their terms of use to include paid editing. That is when an editor is actually paid for their editing and goes beyond just COI such as marketing firms or departments or any individual paid to edit. You can see more information at the Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure page at Wikimedia. This may or may not apply to you but you should at least be familiar with the disclosure portion and areas that are not effected by the Terms of Use for your own clarity.
I think you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia and encourage you to edit constructively and within our policies and guidelines. Aloha and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, in Feb. I updated my User page to remove an outdated photo and update my location. I was not trying to hide my employment, that information is public by any web search and page history. I put the employment disclaimer back including additional disclaimers for the sake of completeness. After reading the COI page I agree that I should probably not edit the CFHT page directly and in the future I will use the talk page instead of direct edits. I was not aware that it applied to noncontroversial updates. I'm not so sure about the Mauna Kea Observatories page but I will proceed with caution and disclosure. I have no affiliation with TMT and I am in no way paid to edit. kanoa (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your good faith and feel you have a good grasp on the concern I raise. The COI for the Mauna Kea observatories is far less than the specific observatory, but is still a possible issue as is the TMT as it is a planned observatory for the Mauna Kea site. All of which is within a possible COI claim on Wikipedia so, proceeding with caution is a good idea, but I don't wish to make that an issue unless there is disruption, and from the manner in which you took the above posting, it appears you are a civil editor so I will not insist you stay off those articles. Just, please be aware that you might put yourself in an unfavorable position as an editor. But I do want to encourage you to edit, even those particular articles, as long as you collaborate and stay within policy. Oh...I should also warn you that these articles might fall under general sanctions for politics. Not sure. Seems this is not a political subject but because of the issues, it is something I am keeping in the back of my head.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Kpad.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kpad.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mark Miller (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Are you now questioning my good faith? You said it was outdated, but more important is that when we place these tags on images for deletion, we are supposed to notify the uploader with a specific template. I hate them and didn't toss them at you to begin with but this is a matter of our policy on copyright infringement and it is the proper procedure. The image was taken by someone other than yourself. It does not qualify to be transferred to Commons on that grounds (which is why I removed the bot request) and all you need to do if you wish it to go to commons is either OTRS an e-mail verification from the photographer (the one who snapped the pic) for the upload here or do so when uploading to commons. But it is clearly not an image you have declared a transfer of ownership through "Work for hire" or specific permissions for a previously unpublished image, which still requires the specific attribution of the photographer by name. I am not harassing you. Were you harassing me by following my edits to numerous articles and adding tags and making accusations? I didn't believe so. I still believe you are just inexperienced and now becoming frustrated over things you already said were outdated.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking why are you so concerned about the rights to my personal image from my user page. I didn't ask for your help with it. I understand the rules have changed since I uploaded it over nine years ago and I flagged it for deletion instead of asserting ownership under the new rules. I'm not interested in you personally, I'm only concerned with a group of related, linked pages that you are making edits to. kanoa (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know me and it seems you don't understand exactly how things work on Wikipedia. This is about not allowing blatant copyright issues. That is a bright line rule. There are other ways to deal with these issues but this is the least obtrusive. Seriously. I have been VERY patient with you. Why? Because I try to be a part of the Wikipedia community as a whole. I believe in editor retention and not dwelling on every little detail. However, there is certainly another route I could have gone. I could have taken your edits directly to WP:COIN to report you for blatant violations of policy and procedure and began a discussion of your edits to the articles in question, namely, the place you have disclosed to be where you work. You remember? The disclosure you suddenly decided to delete AFTER your COI edit, giving the impression you may have been aware of the situation, if not the exact policy or guideline, then put back after I made you aware of the issue.
Look, I am not after you, but I will defend the project and encyclopedia from anyone who would try to vandalize it or, in your case, simply not follow our policies and procedures, so you don't end up with a block log, head aches over disputes and other issues just from your edits, and the encyclopedia being disrupted. You certainly have a number of options yourself if you feel mistreated but, I am seriously trying to help keep you around even if that means making you see that some of your mistakes need to be dealt with now. I am sorry this escaped anyone's attention for this long. This is what happens when you edit articles with many different eyes on them. Your own behavior and edits will be looked at and I believe I have been very kind to you. I am sorry if such aloha has been misplaced. We can begin formal venues such as WP:ANI whenever you wish. Happy Editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am inexperienced and I make mistakes but I own them and welcome all external review including yours. I feel you are retaliating against me for edits I made to your work where I believe you have an NPOV issue. I plan to continue to work with you on those pages though we clearly need to involve other editors. kanoa (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that I am retaliating I must ask you to refrain from interacting with me. I have gone out of my way not to use formal dispute resolution when you have made serious errors including one clear copyright issue that did not need to be speedy deleted because you might still want the image and might still be able to correct the lack of permissions. I have explained this to you but I have no further patience for these accusations. These are personal attacks and you may want review the guidelines on that. Discuss the contributions not the contributor unless there are blatant violations.....like the ones you made and I was trying to work with you on. I advise you to refrain from editing these areas. You have a declared COI and work at the Mauna Kea Observatories. You are not experienced enough to be editing these areas yet. You seem to be a reasonable person. I believe you may eventually understand the reasoning of the request (not a demand. I'm not an admin). While this is clearly not pleasant, it did not really have to get this bad. You are an editor on Wikipedia and you have agreed to standards of editing. You are not being singled out. You have a financial connection to these subjects and it is reasonable to believe that all employees off the observatories would benefit from the further prestige of the TMT.
If you intend to work with me...then please learn what good faith is and how accusing me of retaliation can only be seen as further evidence that, for the moment, you lack competence to edit Wikipedia in these more controversial areas. I have already said that the COI could be seen as less than the individual observatory you work for but that it can still be seen as a COI depending if you are disruptive. Dude...this is disruptive. Seriously. Step back, look at your actions and try to understand you have much to learn and you are not helping yourself at all right now. But lets move past it and start over. Alright? Aloha.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have a conflict of interest around the protests and I believe you are trying to intimidate me from contributing to that subject matter. I'm willing to work with you within the limits of my own COI and you can report me or initiate dispute resolution any time you wish. kanoa (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to feel singled out when your edits come under criticism. How is it I "obviously have a conflict of interest around the protests"? I have no personal, professional or financial interest in the protests. I don't even live in Hawaii and have never met one person demonstrating there. Having an interest in the subjects is not COI. I am very interested in Hawaii related articles of all kinds. My genealogy is brand new to me and discovered as part of my work on Wikipedia. Like any political subject, supporting one side or the other does not mean one cannot summarize the sources. I have no conflict of interest in the Thirty Meter Telescope, Mauna Kea, Mauna Kea Observatories, Thirty Meter Telescope protests or any subject under telescopes, observatories or the sciences. If I wanted to take you to any venue I would have. The offer was to cooperate if you wish to file against me for your concerns. You have as many options as those I pointed out, I had decided not to use because you were being civil. As a community, it isn't necessary for every single issue to be taken to WP:AN/ANI or the DR Noticeboard if there is a civil editor who understands how to proceed properly. It isn't like you didn't quickly understand the issue when brought to your attention. I haven't even taken normal steps I have taken with others on this very issue by posting the COI template on the article talkpage listing you by editor name. That would surely make you think I was retaliating. But, I cannot control what you think, just what options you have as a civil way to inform. The TMT has not been built. I don't see any telescope operator from having a COI with editing that article just because they work at the observatories. It is not a thing yet. It is just a proposal. Now, being a telescope operator does not mean you would have a COI with the protests, but if you are telescope operator (these are just examples of course) at Mauna kea then you probably would. If I was employed at California Musical Theatre, I would have a conflict of interest for editing the article, but when I am no longer employed with the company the financial aspect is gone. I have not had a personal or professional relationship with the staff for years. There are many ex employees that contribute to many company articles. Being neutral is what is important and not having a personal or professional relationship.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict I'm referring to is the POV of your recent Wikipedia edits and that is all I am concerned about. [redacted by User:Mark Miller] I don't have a problem with your personal views but I do have a problem with your non-neutral edits to Wikipedia articles in this subject area. kanoa (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting to hear why you redacted my own words on my own talk page. Was it a violation of Wikipedia rules or ethics? kanoa (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doxing attempt. I do not wish to have my off Wikipedia privacy invaded. I am asking you not to do that again in any way. I use my real name for a reason however, let me be clear, that is not an invitation to start listing things you found or know about me that are not Wikipedia related, or that I have not disclosed. Yes...I googled you as well. Yes, I have some concerns. No, I will not post it on a talk page openly.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doxing involves personal information so it doesn't apply here. Wikipedia has more stringent rules on outing but it does not apply either. Furthermore I did not search for your information; you posted your opinions, links to your Wikipedia activity and. I respect your right to personal opinions and frankly your views on the subject are nowhere near as extreme as some of my friends and relatives. I think it's bizarre that you want to convince yourself and others that you are indifferent but in the end I only care about the NPOV of the edits you are making to Wikipedia on this subject. kanoa (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck is wrong with you? I am serious? Do you not get it? Shut the fuck up about my off Wikipedia activity. I disclosed my personal info because it was relevant AFTER you posted that I had a Facebook account and a Youtube account. Those are ways of contacting me. Review the fucking guideline. If you do it one more time, I will ask for you to be blocked.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not indifferent. I have an absolute fucking opinion. As do you. But, unlike you, I am not forcing it down other peoples throats and trying to write in Wikipedia's voice of authority, a declared COI POV with financial connection. You are paid to work on Mauna Kea. You lifestyle and pay depends on the mountain. You have cler COI that you have already self declared AFTER trying to hide it after editing you place of employment against policy. I tried to be helpful but your own POV stood in the way. Your own needs came before that of Wikipedia. THAT is a COI. Edit where ever you want. If you edit an aricle you have COI with, expect to be reported and let the community decide if you should be allowed to contribute further.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
