This is an
archive of discussions from 2007.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the
current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →
→ Note: A
mouse kindly retired me from
March·April·May·June 2007
COI noticeboard archiving. —
A.
22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation to weigh in on the PSK discussion on the Vanderbilt University talk page. My own argument against including any mention of PSK, of course, is that it's trivia. I hope adding another voice to the discussion does some good! Esrever 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. And, as I tried to make clear in my posting on the talk page, please feel free to edit the words I added in any way that you think improves the article, per WP:OWN. My only request had to do with not removing everything I added without a prior posting on the talk page. John Broughton | Talk 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
→ (Discussion pertained to information in the following list and table.)
List
Table
203.49.235.50 | 50 | no | Oct, Dec | Jan | no | ||||||
211.29.3.48 | 25 | no | Feb, Dec | no | |||||||
211.29.3.61 | 16 | no | Dec | no | |||||||
211.29.2.142 | 10 | yes | Dec | no | |||||||
211.29.13.6 | 3 | no | Aug, Nov | no | |||||||
211.29.13.50 | 3 | yes | Jan | no | |||||||
211.29.2.233 | 2 | no | Oct | no | |||||||
211.29.13.235 | 1 | yes | Dec | no | |||||||
Mobile 01 | count | no | Nov, Dec | Jan | yes |
You wrote:
and:
…I have been gone for a bit. I will check. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 06:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)…
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_boot_Mobile_01… Travb ( talk) 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, the situation has escalated.
I have tried really, really hard to keep WP:NPA, but the "Lengthy, contentious, misleading" attacks (diff) are continuing. I placed a warning on [that user] page to attempt to stop the WP:NPA violations.
Although plenty of admins has condemed [that user] behavior, no one is assisting in this situation beyond the page protections. There seems like a collective yawn, even though this story could be potentially scandalous, like the WP:Congressional Staffer Edits.
What more can we do?
I am glad that no one helped before, because if they would have banned [that user] outright, I would have never found out that Bridgestone is editing these pages (Firestone was bought out by Bridgestone) … Should I file Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? The normal channels of reporting abuse seemed to have failed. Travb ( talk) 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Updated links for some archived discussions:
(Travb ended up at Okip. – Athaenara ✉ 22:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC))
Thanks. Well, I might not have much to add to wikipedia, so I figured i'd take some of the load off those who do. feba 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind and wise words. I plan not to reply further unless NewtonFallsLeader ( talk · contribs) can provide links to policies as I asked. If no one pays attention, maybe he'll go away, or proceed as you suggest. If he starts adding the link again, would my removing what I consider to be linkspam be subject to WP:3RR in your opinion? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Rührfisch, has this thing gone away yet? — Athænara ✉ 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you've archived our discussion about this. In any case you may be interested in the current poll at Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio. Or you may wisely run the other way and never look back ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch 11:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any advice on how to proceed with the other user you referred to ...? I have been letting the RFC run its course but since the process is supposed to end with all parties agreeing, I don't see that happening there. I had thought about opening an RFC on the User (or telling him about it and letting him be hoisted by his own petard assuming he would open one on me). I have also thought of doing nothing since he seems only to respond and react lately. I just figure an RFC that leads to him being blocked as a user or blocked from editing his favorite page is better than having to go to ArbCom with this. Since I have not been involved in a situation like this before though, I am not sure what the options are. Thanks, as always, Ruhrfisch 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
PS Sorry to have gotten you involved in this mess. I don't think you're an admin (and apologize if you are), but if you ever have an RFA I would support it. R
In other thoughts, perhaps you need to add "assume they forgot their meds" to your list too? ;-)
I am done with this conversation then and am fine if you archive it (as you have one of the neatest pages here, in both senses of the word). Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Take care, Ruhrfisch 20:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
After a quick look at the links and some of his contributions, it seems clear to me even without disclosing a client list that there are COI issues with this editors links to and images from the company/companies that holds the name Poweroid as a trademark. I am also somewhat surprised that a name which the editor himself admits is a trademark is allowed (even under a grandfather clause) but that seems to be a dead issue.
While he seems to make some constructive edits that are not COI (mostly on things Indian), I agree that there are definite COI issues here and have now weighed in on COI/N. Ruhrfisch 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know WP:COI/N existed. I've posted relevant information there. Thanks for the heads-up! fethers 14:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I just saw this comment in the history. When I have time, I'm going to run the article up the AfD flagpole. Discussion most likely stopped because user Pebs96 ( talk · contribs) has a tendency to constantly attack those who question her on articles she's written. It's a major reason I stopped responding. That said, I'll be putting it up for AfD soon, I just haven't felt much like editing lately. fethers 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Afd result: deleted 12:33, March 20 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for all of your help. Unfortunately, I had to open a topic on AN/I on Pebs96. If there's anything I've forgotten from the COI/N discussion and the AfD, please chime in. Thanks again! fethers 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you mediate Poweroid's offer* to list websites he may have added, or offer suggestions on how this could be done to keep the list confidential? I'm thinking that it would be best to have a third party involved, rather than my doing everything directly. Thanks. -- Ronz 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
RFCN Poweroid
I noticed
your note on
Poweroid's page. I've been here a lot longer (on and off) but just the other day someone pointed out a bit of discussion etiquette that I'd seen, but didn't know was official guideline (marking discussion you later go back and re-edit, by doing <s>old text</s>). We teach each other (even if there it was because I'd irked him by changing my comment! ;-) I hope I didn't come across as a pain. Please accept my apologies if I did.
Shenme
06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to take any other action with this situation? I could make a good case that he was promoting bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk before he even took the user name Poweroid, as 213.235.36.175 ( talk · contribs), but if no one is more concerned about his behaviour, then I guess it's not important enough to pursue further. -- Ronz 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I have stripped the article. Can you please include it to your watch list in order to prevent unencyclopedic promotional reverts? Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
DONE. I have also asked Tearlach to help as per your suggestion. Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hamsacharya dan, you recently filed a check user request. They haven't come up with any result yet. Please do not pre-empt their findings. With regards to your years worth of work by multiple editors drama, don't you realize that Athænara's I.Q. has been confirmed by Mensa as belonging to the top 2% of the current population? You are, in effect, undermining his/her intelligence by implying that he/she is going to buy the show that you're staging on here. It doesn't take a genius to figure-out what is your true agenda. A single mindful look at your talk page archives and edit history will reveal what you're really up to.
Note to Hamsacharya dan: This is my last reply to you within another user's talk page. If you have personal issues against me then I invite you to bring them up in our own talk pages. Avoid littering another person's talk page with your misguided conjectures. Thank you for cooperating. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. You recently removed some promotional links to the subjects page. Thanks. I just posted a new section on the talk page clarifying some information on the subject. I'm not sure how to proceed, given the problems outlined. If you would be so kind as to comment and or edit, I would appreciate it. - Vritti 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon! Can you please take the honor of serving Hamsacharya dan's 3RR block? It has been sitting at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR for an entire day now. He is just joking around our warnings (he did a full revert again right after you warned him) and even deleted mine twice. Please. - Sentinel 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
On the 3RR report you indicate that Hamsacharya dan "...repeatedly removed the Afd notice from the article." I only see the once and I will warn him for that. Could you please show where other than here he removed the AfD notice. THe thing is that once could have been an error (as he said here but more than once is not. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
→ (Article subsequently deleted.)
Hello Athaenara. Any wisdom on how to handle guru issues? I don't think we can ban adherents from editing articles. If so then Martin Luther could not be edited by either Catholics or Protestants. Yet it seems that there are real editing problems on some of those articles. (I note that Arbcom has had to deal with some of them). Should we just flush those out as not really COIs? That seems harsh, but what else can we do under our mandate? What brought this up was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I sense that the COI noticeboard will be more respected long-term if it sticks to its apparent mandate. The only fallback I can see is to try to ban actual employees of a religious institution from editing articles about their group, but that's harsh as well. EdJohnston 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: WP:ANI Archive135#Justanother checkuser case and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother.
Hello Athænara, you may or may not remember me from several of the Barbara Schwarz issues brought up on various noticeboards. Here you pointed out how certain editors were taking up a lot of unnecessary time and effort with constant notices.
Does Justanother appear to be engaging in similar behavior to you? The reason I ask is that he brought up an issue here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Weird one - User:Anynobody holding my words up to ridicule without attribution or context and rejected the suggestion for a WP:RFC. If you look, I know he has at least one other incident currently open on the same board and many in the archives. I've been trying to get him to do an RfC for about a month to resolve this, and he has gone to some startling lengths to avoid it. Thanks for your time, Anynobody 09:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: "An apology" ( 02:05, 30 March 2007 UTC). Compare: "shooting fish in barrels" ( 15:48, 13 March 2007 UTC).
Please see the apology on my user page. It is directed at editors like you. Even editors like you that may have responded in an uncharacteristic manner and found themselves more than bystanders to the fracas. (AGF is more than a motto to me, it is a way of life. But there is an end to AGF, too. Not you, but others here.) You know, Athaenara, you are wrong about me. Best regards -- Justanother 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you use a template for this diff? Just curious, I had linked the AfD at the bottom but your way was more likely to be noticed/cleaner. Thanx for the input. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Postscript: → '' <u>See also</u>: [[page]] '' is the markup I use for it lately. — Athaenara 07:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You made comments about me misrepresenting policies. Can you clarify what you mean by this. I am not taking issue with what you wrote, I just need clarification as to what you are referencing. Thanks. Jokerst44 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re WP:3O requests, COI/N reports, WP:AN/3RR reports, article RfC, user RfC…)
Hi Athaenara, I want to just thank you for all your thoughtful help with Anchor, not only did you file a third opinion, but when the other party involved managed to have me blocked, you stepped in to try to help. I am happy the article is protected and thus the issue at rest for now, though Badmonkey seems very insistant on having his way and the COI notice did not seem to result in much. Though I am of the opinion that consensus at the moment suggests to leaving the section out which I origonally objected to, especially given Hoof Hearted's amazing effort to learn about the issues involved and then thoughtfully comment. Though regardless of consensus having been reached I dont think this is the last we will see of this issue, at least its at rest for awhile though! Thank you again for your thoughtfulness and help. Russeasby 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For going out of the way to help in an edit conflict and trying to ensure fair treatment among the editors involved. Russeasby 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
Well, protection was lifted from Anchor and as I was worried would happen, User:Badmonkey is back and he readded the section. I do believe consensus was reached on the talk page, but apparently he does not think so. Can I ask for your kind assistance and advice on how to proceed from here? I have not reverted his edit, I do not want to go through all that again. Any advice you give I will happily take and follow. Thank you! Russeasby 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to ask here, as I know you dont like posts here related to articles you already watch. But I felt this question did not belong on Talk:Anchor as it is a WP policy question. So my question is, would it be a violation of WP:CANVASS to leave notes on the pages of people who had previous contibuted a third party opinion for Anchor to notify them of the current WP:RFC active there. I am doing my best to abide by policy in all respects, but its getting rather complicated and some things such as this are not clear to me, thus why I ask for advice. Russeasby 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re Marie Killick article & report now in section #8 of COI/N Archive 6)
Thanks for the formatting. I'm not sure where this is going to go. As there are big COI and single-viewpoint issues with the main sources, access to contemporary newspapers is really necessary. It seems to have been a popular story with the lowbrow papers; The Times mentions only the bankruptcy proceedings. Tearlach 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Athanaera, could you please take a look at Bichon Frisé and particularly the edits of User:Canadian Bichon Frise? I will violate WP:3RR if I revert once more, but this looks like a SPA for COI and spam edits. If you think the links inserted are inappropriate and revert them, I will report any subsequent 3RR behavior. If you think they are fine, I defer to your judgment. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
PS I think you'd make a great admin.
→ (In re COI/N discussions of DeVry University & COI SPAs and WP:ANI reports.)
I appreciate your closing of the initial bad faith report and summarizing the real problem.
I'm amazed how you were able to turn six long rambling reports on multiple notice boards into one simple clear statement and a few links.
Impressive!
Thanks and have a good day... -- Parzival418 09:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi... I thought you might want to know how this turned out. A checkuser was performed and confirmed that the accounts were sockpuppets. The disruptions continued for another day or two, but now Codeplowed and his IP have been blocked for a month, and the sockpuppet accounts blocked indefinitely. The report is here on WP:AN/I. So once again, thanks, your help was instrumental in solving this difficult situation. -- Parzival418 Hello 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
→ (See also Watchlist this article|unwatch))
Hello. In a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination), a merge of the article MDS America into MVDDS dispute has been proposed. You can voice your opinion, if any, on the matter at talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America. Thanks, nadav 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re Endal section in COI/N Archive 10 and AfD.)
Not sure if you intended to undo my change here or not [2]. I am guessing this happened because you were working from a sandbox copying things over? If thats not the case, thats fine too, but I do think the history section is more appropriate first. Russeasby 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: Talk:Endal#Pedigree)
Just a quick note to say thank you for your help in bringing the Endal page in to line with WP rules. I have pasted an article in the Endal discussion page, sent to me by the Labrador Club of Great Britain, which I hope resolves the "which Earl" problem (I do though have to salute your very thorough research, your personal effort in doing so is much appreciated and sets the standard for any additions)
Re the reference books, please free to contact us as I hold copies of all the books mentioned that Endal either has chapters in or is heavily referenced. But by your past record I don't think you'll need my help on this one either. Endal and Allen 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: COI/N Archive 7 and Right to vanish)
Yes right to vanish does include blanking materials from google searchability. Content remains in the article history and no revisions were ever deleted. This is entirely appropriate per right to vanish. Please do not revert again. Feel free to review the discussion here for a second opionion. ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: report now in section #17 of COI/N Archive 11)
Hi Athaenara. Regarding this edit you made: (edits under line 200) What was the reasoning for moving the Roy Gordon Lawrence part to archive. I didn't see any notes as to why this was removed and was just curious on process, methodology, etc. Just trying to understand. Was this a mistake or intentional? Andyru 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today)
Please see my suggestion regarding Law Practice Today on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today. Cheers. -- Edcolins 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: Raritan Computer section now in COI/N Archive 13)
I see you have set decreasing limits on Raritan too. I deleted some of the fluff, and then asked Seraphimblade to help out and he deleted a bit more. I just shook my head when all they wanted to do was decide which unsourced version to revert to. I figure that eventually when they see the article disappearing, they'll wake up. If I actually had time, I'd do some quick research and find some sources for them. Its an old enough company, something has to exist on them, somewhere. :) peace in God. Lsi john 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: User Bookuser section, now in COI/N Archive 12)
Could you consider reading through and comment on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Bookuser? It looks like this is close to being settled, and fairly easily. There is still the issue of Bookuser overlinking MIT Press and Semiotext(e) as in Paul Virilio#Bibliography [3]. Your perspective would be appreciated. -- Ronz 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello ... you replied to my comment regarding Instructions in Noticeboard/Header create a problem, and I noticed that you had also commented on WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (which, BTW, I believe may be safely closed now) ... I don't know if you've been following "The Project" to bring VAwebteam ( talk · contribs) up to speed, but I'm having a Civility problem with another editor at User talk:VAwebteam#To do list (can you say, "Going off-topic without making any contributions?")
I try Very Hard not to feed trolls, but I've recently wasted another block of pre-scheduled time responding to Johnbod ( talk · contribs) about their insistence on following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the policies and guidelines in this situation, and I would really appreciate an intervention before it escalates to the level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
I'm sorry, but if the time that I had set aside to work on a specific Wikipedia page is instead consumed by responding to their WikiLawyering, then I consider their posts "disruptive behavior" ... I had neglected to remember that Johnbod was the one who inserted that "entire history" vs. "entire art history" distraction into VAwebteam's COI discussion, otherwise I would have simply ignored them when they showed up on VAwebteam's Talk page, so I guess I only have myself to blame for taking their bait a second time. :-)
Anywho, thnx fer any assistance that you are willing to render on User talk:VAwebteam#To do list ... and please mark this plea for assistance as another disruption of my time, as well as (possibly) yours. Happy Editing! — 72.75.100.232 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You edited my recent post on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (about my Navbox snafu) with the comment, No need to change sig/timestamp on earlier post, though. Restored that. … look at the edit history, and you'll see that I did not edit the comment to make any such revision manually … my Verizon DSL IP address changed yesterday because of a momentary power failure that rebooted by modem, which you'll find documented on the User pages for both IPs… — 72.75.70.147 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the tags on this article. It really needs a clean-up, but I may be too biased to do a good job myself. Bearian 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm pretty new to COIN. I notice you closed some entries, including Overton Loyd. Is this something that any editor can do? If so, do you think I would have been justified in closing that one myself (since another editor had already reported that the situation was resolved?) And what exactly is the process for doing so? Thanks for any tips… - Pete 05:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
A discussion which has concluded may be boxed with top {{ coit}} and bottom {{ coib}} markup:
The article and result fields are filled in for each section. An example from COI/N Archive 14:
"Resolved" "Inactive" and "Article deleted" are typical but not universal results. The templates are {{ subst}}ed (see template substitution) and will expand after a page save.
The {{ coit}} and {{ coib}} markup may be added either before or after a section is lifted and transplanted as a single block of text from the noticeboard to the archive selected from the COI/N archive toc.
Questions and answers about archiving. – Hypothetical debate. – 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of a possible conflict of interest related to the article below. Please do not modify it. |
Questions and answers about archiving→ See also: Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Show/hide boxes are unnecessary?
The Template:COI top and Template:COI bottom instructions are obscure and difficult to understand. Could they be made simpler and more straightforward? [ ~~~~ signature + timestamp (UTC) ]
[ Conclusion. ] |
The above is an archived debate of a possible conflict of interest. Please do not modify it. |
My mouse will no longer do massive copying and pasting. Fortunately, there are other editors with tougher ones. Maybe you're one of them? — Athaenara 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 15#EServer.org & Special:Linksearch/*.antislavery.eserver.org)
Athaenara -- I shall pass on any further immediate address to deleted links in the slavery-related articles. The past several days have been interesting but diversionary, and attention needs to be paid elsewhere. Late this month I shall return to this matter via talk pages on the individual articles. When we get around to that, I shall notify you and look forward to working with you on review of these links. Cheers, -- Jlockard 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I am delayed in returning to work on external links to slavery-related articles. Reality, deadlines, that sort of matter. There is, however, not the slightest rush here. Jlockard 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Recently User:Dking has resumed this activity -- see [4] and [5]. Also see similar edits by User:Cberlet: [6], [7], and [8]. -- Don't lose that number 07:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
→ In re various COI discussions including, among others, the following:
→ (In re: Victoria and Albert Museum sections (1) & (2) in COI/N Archive 12. — A.)
Hello, I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page. Also, if you can bear it, my To Do List has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to say something about VAwebteam's amazing image for the Ardabil Carpet article, but it really speaks for itself. — Athaenara ✉ 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: WP:COI issues on Tassajara Zen Mountain Center and request for a third opinion)
Hello! I´m thw1309. You asked for a third opignion about the article Tassajara. Please could you explain your opignion about the changes, which were removed on the article´s talkpage. -- Thw1309 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archive 5#Question about COI/N archiving. — A.
Hi Athaenara! Since you stopped archiving, the COI noticeboard is turning into a slum. It's now up to 280 kb, it has grass growing between the bricks, etc. Would you have any opinion on archiving by bot? I helped the WQA board to switch to that system in July, and of course WP:AN and WP:ANI do it that way. It would mean some issues may not be crisply resolved, and some people would miss that. It would also keep things current, and it's less work. A 12 day timeout might be considered (vs. 1 day for ANI, 2 days for AN). EdJohnston 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(* Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Archiving by bot?)
→ In re:
Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (
|
article |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
and
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#User Benderson2 and TREC.
On the TREC issue, it's starting to look that you might need some admin help on the article Talk page. It's unfortunate that COIN has not been had many patrollers lately. Maybe it's something about the vacation. Usually you get a few good blasts of indignation about the more inexcusable stuff, but it's been very quiet. (Except in some cases where people come to the noticeboard along with the issue). I've seen Jehochman around, but not too many other people. Even WP:RSN is rather dull these days. Maybe the TREC stuff will escalate up to a real noticeboard, and something will happen! Also the TREC issues seem to require very careful study of the references, which may discourage newcomers. The most blatant stuff is the behavior of the webmaster. EdJohnston 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: Anti-stuttering devices ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Special:Contributions/Tdkehoe.
Hi Athaenara, I found Anti-stuttering devices on Peer Review here with this red flag "The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something." I left {{ uw-coi}} on the author's talk page and am not sure if this should go to WP:COI/N or not. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: User:Tdkehoe and previous discussion above.
Hi Athaenara, back in September you looked at Anti-stuttering devices, whose primary author ( User:Tdkehoe) is head of a firm that makes said devices. I left a COI notice on his talk page then, we both did some cleanup of the article, and I listed the article at COI/N, but it was archived without any comments. The article is still very problematic, and he has also been working on Stuttering, which was demoted from Featured Article recently (see the FAR). Since the FAR he has been reverting / removing from Stuttering well-sourced material (based on peer-reviewed research) that goes against his products (see Talk:Stuttering).
Now SandyGeorgia (and, to a lesser extent, I) have stepped in, but I was wondering what advice you have here? Relist Anti-stuttering devices at COI/N? List Stuttering and/or User:Tdkehoe at COI/N? RfC the article? RfC the editor? All of the above? Run screaming to Jimbo? ;-) Any advice or help you could offer here would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance and happy Thanksgiving a day late, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
→ In re:
Geoeg (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (blocked indefinitely as of 7 November)
→ See also:
Requests for comment/Geoeg, where discussions on several noticeboards are linked.
You took the 3O note down, but you haven't comment on Talk:Vaníček analysis. Are you going to? Dicklyon 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Geoeg is now blocked for 3RR for 48 hours. But he has removed your COI tag from Petr Vanicek, and I have been advised to not touch it myself. I appreciate your support in dealing with this pushy newbie. Dicklyon 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: As the user is still tirelessly generating further antagonism ( even while blocked), I think it would be wise if you stopped responding to it. What do you think? — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: Appalachian Voices ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Thanks for helping me on the Appalachian Voices page! I was starting to get lonely!! D-rew ( talk) 02:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Moneybomb and user John J. Bulten ( talk · contribs).
See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. He's trying to change WP:V to justify inclusion of the material viewed as unreliably sourced. Gordonofcartoon 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: John J. Bulten ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Sorry, but would you be able to take a glance at this? I'm getting hassled on my Talk page now with another spurious line of argument: his trying to invoke WP:BLP for a fairly trivial comment I made. And he's still not accepting that his error is not something lying within complex nitpicks with rules, but is that complex rule-nitpicking is viewed as contentious in itself per WP:POINT and WP:GAME. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: deletion of AtHomeNet article. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtHomeNet.
This is the user Edenrage, and I can't figure out how to post a new post on this thing....
I'm kind of new at this, but I saw your name under the deletion for the page AtHomeNet, which was marked as ana advertisement. I amde sure the page only stated facts, and I lookad at the profiles for IBM, COke, and some other companies, and there pages had far more info which could be construed as advertisement. Everything on the AtHomenet page is verifiable, so how do I go about getting it undeleted? Also, if somehow it does not meet the criteria, please give me a specific example of how it does not.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: user account
JMorton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log).
→ See also:
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 19#COI: Jack Morton Worldwide.
I've unblocked the above user (who you indefblocked), on the proviso that he avoid all articles to which he and his company are connected. I hope you don't mind! I did it on a proviso, however:
Request for unblock accepted, on the condition that the user does not edit any articles to which he or she has any connection (specifically, but not including, Jack Morton Worldwide). Any edits that even border on a conflict of interest will result in a permanent block.
Sound like a plan? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Athaenara, Ive been setting up a number of articles of charities in the Philippines, the latest one here... Childhope Asia Philippines ... but i wanted to add these to the section on Category:Organizations based in the Philippines... but I cant see how to add them or how to place the tags on the charity areticles after, can you pls explain how i can do this? kind regards Susanbryce ( talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an
archive of discussions from 2007.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the
current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →
→ Note: A
mouse kindly retired me from
March·April·May·June 2007
COI noticeboard archiving. —
A.
22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation to weigh in on the PSK discussion on the Vanderbilt University talk page. My own argument against including any mention of PSK, of course, is that it's trivia. I hope adding another voice to the discussion does some good! Esrever 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. And, as I tried to make clear in my posting on the talk page, please feel free to edit the words I added in any way that you think improves the article, per WP:OWN. My only request had to do with not removing everything I added without a prior posting on the talk page. John Broughton | Talk 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
→ (Discussion pertained to information in the following list and table.)
List
Table
203.49.235.50 | 50 | no | Oct, Dec | Jan | no | ||||||
211.29.3.48 | 25 | no | Feb, Dec | no | |||||||
211.29.3.61 | 16 | no | Dec | no | |||||||
211.29.2.142 | 10 | yes | Dec | no | |||||||
211.29.13.6 | 3 | no | Aug, Nov | no | |||||||
211.29.13.50 | 3 | yes | Jan | no | |||||||
211.29.2.233 | 2 | no | Oct | no | |||||||
211.29.13.235 | 1 | yes | Dec | no | |||||||
Mobile 01 | count | no | Nov, Dec | Jan | yes |
You wrote:
and:
…I have been gone for a bit. I will check. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 06:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)…
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_boot_Mobile_01… Travb ( talk) 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, the situation has escalated.
I have tried really, really hard to keep WP:NPA, but the "Lengthy, contentious, misleading" attacks (diff) are continuing. I placed a warning on [that user] page to attempt to stop the WP:NPA violations.
Although plenty of admins has condemed [that user] behavior, no one is assisting in this situation beyond the page protections. There seems like a collective yawn, even though this story could be potentially scandalous, like the WP:Congressional Staffer Edits.
What more can we do?
I am glad that no one helped before, because if they would have banned [that user] outright, I would have never found out that Bridgestone is editing these pages (Firestone was bought out by Bridgestone) … Should I file Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? The normal channels of reporting abuse seemed to have failed. Travb ( talk) 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Updated links for some archived discussions:
(Travb ended up at Okip. – Athaenara ✉ 22:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC))
Thanks. Well, I might not have much to add to wikipedia, so I figured i'd take some of the load off those who do. feba 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind and wise words. I plan not to reply further unless NewtonFallsLeader ( talk · contribs) can provide links to policies as I asked. If no one pays attention, maybe he'll go away, or proceed as you suggest. If he starts adding the link again, would my removing what I consider to be linkspam be subject to WP:3RR in your opinion? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Rührfisch, has this thing gone away yet? — Athænara ✉ 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you've archived our discussion about this. In any case you may be interested in the current poll at Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio. Or you may wisely run the other way and never look back ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch 11:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any advice on how to proceed with the other user you referred to ...? I have been letting the RFC run its course but since the process is supposed to end with all parties agreeing, I don't see that happening there. I had thought about opening an RFC on the User (or telling him about it and letting him be hoisted by his own petard assuming he would open one on me). I have also thought of doing nothing since he seems only to respond and react lately. I just figure an RFC that leads to him being blocked as a user or blocked from editing his favorite page is better than having to go to ArbCom with this. Since I have not been involved in a situation like this before though, I am not sure what the options are. Thanks, as always, Ruhrfisch 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
PS Sorry to have gotten you involved in this mess. I don't think you're an admin (and apologize if you are), but if you ever have an RFA I would support it. R
In other thoughts, perhaps you need to add "assume they forgot their meds" to your list too? ;-)
I am done with this conversation then and am fine if you archive it (as you have one of the neatest pages here, in both senses of the word). Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Take care, Ruhrfisch 20:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
After a quick look at the links and some of his contributions, it seems clear to me even without disclosing a client list that there are COI issues with this editors links to and images from the company/companies that holds the name Poweroid as a trademark. I am also somewhat surprised that a name which the editor himself admits is a trademark is allowed (even under a grandfather clause) but that seems to be a dead issue.
While he seems to make some constructive edits that are not COI (mostly on things Indian), I agree that there are definite COI issues here and have now weighed in on COI/N. Ruhrfisch 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know WP:COI/N existed. I've posted relevant information there. Thanks for the heads-up! fethers 14:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I just saw this comment in the history. When I have time, I'm going to run the article up the AfD flagpole. Discussion most likely stopped because user Pebs96 ( talk · contribs) has a tendency to constantly attack those who question her on articles she's written. It's a major reason I stopped responding. That said, I'll be putting it up for AfD soon, I just haven't felt much like editing lately. fethers 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Afd result: deleted 12:33, March 20 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for all of your help. Unfortunately, I had to open a topic on AN/I on Pebs96. If there's anything I've forgotten from the COI/N discussion and the AfD, please chime in. Thanks again! fethers 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you mediate Poweroid's offer* to list websites he may have added, or offer suggestions on how this could be done to keep the list confidential? I'm thinking that it would be best to have a third party involved, rather than my doing everything directly. Thanks. -- Ronz 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
RFCN Poweroid
I noticed
your note on
Poweroid's page. I've been here a lot longer (on and off) but just the other day someone pointed out a bit of discussion etiquette that I'd seen, but didn't know was official guideline (marking discussion you later go back and re-edit, by doing <s>old text</s>). We teach each other (even if there it was because I'd irked him by changing my comment! ;-) I hope I didn't come across as a pain. Please accept my apologies if I did.
Shenme
06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to take any other action with this situation? I could make a good case that he was promoting bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk before he even took the user name Poweroid, as 213.235.36.175 ( talk · contribs), but if no one is more concerned about his behaviour, then I guess it's not important enough to pursue further. -- Ronz 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I have stripped the article. Can you please include it to your watch list in order to prevent unencyclopedic promotional reverts? Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
DONE. I have also asked Tearlach to help as per your suggestion. Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hamsacharya dan, you recently filed a check user request. They haven't come up with any result yet. Please do not pre-empt their findings. With regards to your years worth of work by multiple editors drama, don't you realize that Athænara's I.Q. has been confirmed by Mensa as belonging to the top 2% of the current population? You are, in effect, undermining his/her intelligence by implying that he/she is going to buy the show that you're staging on here. It doesn't take a genius to figure-out what is your true agenda. A single mindful look at your talk page archives and edit history will reveal what you're really up to.
Note to Hamsacharya dan: This is my last reply to you within another user's talk page. If you have personal issues against me then I invite you to bring them up in our own talk pages. Avoid littering another person's talk page with your misguided conjectures. Thank you for cooperating. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. You recently removed some promotional links to the subjects page. Thanks. I just posted a new section on the talk page clarifying some information on the subject. I'm not sure how to proceed, given the problems outlined. If you would be so kind as to comment and or edit, I would appreciate it. - Vritti 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon! Can you please take the honor of serving Hamsacharya dan's 3RR block? It has been sitting at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR for an entire day now. He is just joking around our warnings (he did a full revert again right after you warned him) and even deleted mine twice. Please. - Sentinel 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
On the 3RR report you indicate that Hamsacharya dan "...repeatedly removed the Afd notice from the article." I only see the once and I will warn him for that. Could you please show where other than here he removed the AfD notice. THe thing is that once could have been an error (as he said here but more than once is not. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
→ (Article subsequently deleted.)
Hello Athaenara. Any wisdom on how to handle guru issues? I don't think we can ban adherents from editing articles. If so then Martin Luther could not be edited by either Catholics or Protestants. Yet it seems that there are real editing problems on some of those articles. (I note that Arbcom has had to deal with some of them). Should we just flush those out as not really COIs? That seems harsh, but what else can we do under our mandate? What brought this up was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I sense that the COI noticeboard will be more respected long-term if it sticks to its apparent mandate. The only fallback I can see is to try to ban actual employees of a religious institution from editing articles about their group, but that's harsh as well. EdJohnston 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: WP:ANI Archive135#Justanother checkuser case and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother.
Hello Athænara, you may or may not remember me from several of the Barbara Schwarz issues brought up on various noticeboards. Here you pointed out how certain editors were taking up a lot of unnecessary time and effort with constant notices.
Does Justanother appear to be engaging in similar behavior to you? The reason I ask is that he brought up an issue here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Weird one - User:Anynobody holding my words up to ridicule without attribution or context and rejected the suggestion for a WP:RFC. If you look, I know he has at least one other incident currently open on the same board and many in the archives. I've been trying to get him to do an RfC for about a month to resolve this, and he has gone to some startling lengths to avoid it. Thanks for your time, Anynobody 09:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: "An apology" ( 02:05, 30 March 2007 UTC). Compare: "shooting fish in barrels" ( 15:48, 13 March 2007 UTC).
Please see the apology on my user page. It is directed at editors like you. Even editors like you that may have responded in an uncharacteristic manner and found themselves more than bystanders to the fracas. (AGF is more than a motto to me, it is a way of life. But there is an end to AGF, too. Not you, but others here.) You know, Athaenara, you are wrong about me. Best regards -- Justanother 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you use a template for this diff? Just curious, I had linked the AfD at the bottom but your way was more likely to be noticed/cleaner. Thanx for the input. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Postscript: → '' <u>See also</u>: [[page]] '' is the markup I use for it lately. — Athaenara 07:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You made comments about me misrepresenting policies. Can you clarify what you mean by this. I am not taking issue with what you wrote, I just need clarification as to what you are referencing. Thanks. Jokerst44 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re WP:3O requests, COI/N reports, WP:AN/3RR reports, article RfC, user RfC…)
Hi Athaenara, I want to just thank you for all your thoughtful help with Anchor, not only did you file a third opinion, but when the other party involved managed to have me blocked, you stepped in to try to help. I am happy the article is protected and thus the issue at rest for now, though Badmonkey seems very insistant on having his way and the COI notice did not seem to result in much. Though I am of the opinion that consensus at the moment suggests to leaving the section out which I origonally objected to, especially given Hoof Hearted's amazing effort to learn about the issues involved and then thoughtfully comment. Though regardless of consensus having been reached I dont think this is the last we will see of this issue, at least its at rest for awhile though! Thank you again for your thoughtfulness and help. Russeasby 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For going out of the way to help in an edit conflict and trying to ensure fair treatment among the editors involved. Russeasby 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
Well, protection was lifted from Anchor and as I was worried would happen, User:Badmonkey is back and he readded the section. I do believe consensus was reached on the talk page, but apparently he does not think so. Can I ask for your kind assistance and advice on how to proceed from here? I have not reverted his edit, I do not want to go through all that again. Any advice you give I will happily take and follow. Thank you! Russeasby 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to ask here, as I know you dont like posts here related to articles you already watch. But I felt this question did not belong on Talk:Anchor as it is a WP policy question. So my question is, would it be a violation of WP:CANVASS to leave notes on the pages of people who had previous contibuted a third party opinion for Anchor to notify them of the current WP:RFC active there. I am doing my best to abide by policy in all respects, but its getting rather complicated and some things such as this are not clear to me, thus why I ask for advice. Russeasby 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re Marie Killick article & report now in section #8 of COI/N Archive 6)
Thanks for the formatting. I'm not sure where this is going to go. As there are big COI and single-viewpoint issues with the main sources, access to contemporary newspapers is really necessary. It seems to have been a popular story with the lowbrow papers; The Times mentions only the bankruptcy proceedings. Tearlach 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Athanaera, could you please take a look at Bichon Frisé and particularly the edits of User:Canadian Bichon Frise? I will violate WP:3RR if I revert once more, but this looks like a SPA for COI and spam edits. If you think the links inserted are inappropriate and revert them, I will report any subsequent 3RR behavior. If you think they are fine, I defer to your judgment. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
PS I think you'd make a great admin.
→ (In re COI/N discussions of DeVry University & COI SPAs and WP:ANI reports.)
I appreciate your closing of the initial bad faith report and summarizing the real problem.
I'm amazed how you were able to turn six long rambling reports on multiple notice boards into one simple clear statement and a few links.
Impressive!
Thanks and have a good day... -- Parzival418 09:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi... I thought you might want to know how this turned out. A checkuser was performed and confirmed that the accounts were sockpuppets. The disruptions continued for another day or two, but now Codeplowed and his IP have been blocked for a month, and the sockpuppet accounts blocked indefinitely. The report is here on WP:AN/I. So once again, thanks, your help was instrumental in solving this difficult situation. -- Parzival418 Hello 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
→ (See also Watchlist this article|unwatch))
Hello. In a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination), a merge of the article MDS America into MVDDS dispute has been proposed. You can voice your opinion, if any, on the matter at talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America. Thanks, nadav 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re Endal section in COI/N Archive 10 and AfD.)
Not sure if you intended to undo my change here or not [2]. I am guessing this happened because you were working from a sandbox copying things over? If thats not the case, thats fine too, but I do think the history section is more appropriate first. Russeasby 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: Talk:Endal#Pedigree)
Just a quick note to say thank you for your help in bringing the Endal page in to line with WP rules. I have pasted an article in the Endal discussion page, sent to me by the Labrador Club of Great Britain, which I hope resolves the "which Earl" problem (I do though have to salute your very thorough research, your personal effort in doing so is much appreciated and sets the standard for any additions)
Re the reference books, please free to contact us as I hold copies of all the books mentioned that Endal either has chapters in or is heavily referenced. But by your past record I don't think you'll need my help on this one either. Endal and Allen 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: COI/N Archive 7 and Right to vanish)
Yes right to vanish does include blanking materials from google searchability. Content remains in the article history and no revisions were ever deleted. This is entirely appropriate per right to vanish. Please do not revert again. Feel free to review the discussion here for a second opionion. ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: report now in section #17 of COI/N Archive 11)
Hi Athaenara. Regarding this edit you made: (edits under line 200) What was the reasoning for moving the Roy Gordon Lawrence part to archive. I didn't see any notes as to why this was removed and was just curious on process, methodology, etc. Just trying to understand. Was this a mistake or intentional? Andyru 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today)
Please see my suggestion regarding Law Practice Today on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today. Cheers. -- Edcolins 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: Raritan Computer section now in COI/N Archive 13)
I see you have set decreasing limits on Raritan too. I deleted some of the fluff, and then asked Seraphimblade to help out and he deleted a bit more. I just shook my head when all they wanted to do was decide which unsourced version to revert to. I figure that eventually when they see the article disappearing, they'll wake up. If I actually had time, I'd do some quick research and find some sources for them. Its an old enough company, something has to exist on them, somewhere. :) peace in God. Lsi john 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: User Bookuser section, now in COI/N Archive 12)
Could you consider reading through and comment on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Bookuser? It looks like this is close to being settled, and fairly easily. There is still the issue of Bookuser overlinking MIT Press and Semiotext(e) as in Paul Virilio#Bibliography [3]. Your perspective would be appreciated. -- Ronz 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello ... you replied to my comment regarding Instructions in Noticeboard/Header create a problem, and I noticed that you had also commented on WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (which, BTW, I believe may be safely closed now) ... I don't know if you've been following "The Project" to bring VAwebteam ( talk · contribs) up to speed, but I'm having a Civility problem with another editor at User talk:VAwebteam#To do list (can you say, "Going off-topic without making any contributions?")
I try Very Hard not to feed trolls, but I've recently wasted another block of pre-scheduled time responding to Johnbod ( talk · contribs) about their insistence on following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the policies and guidelines in this situation, and I would really appreciate an intervention before it escalates to the level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
I'm sorry, but if the time that I had set aside to work on a specific Wikipedia page is instead consumed by responding to their WikiLawyering, then I consider their posts "disruptive behavior" ... I had neglected to remember that Johnbod was the one who inserted that "entire history" vs. "entire art history" distraction into VAwebteam's COI discussion, otherwise I would have simply ignored them when they showed up on VAwebteam's Talk page, so I guess I only have myself to blame for taking their bait a second time. :-)
Anywho, thnx fer any assistance that you are willing to render on User talk:VAwebteam#To do list ... and please mark this plea for assistance as another disruption of my time, as well as (possibly) yours. Happy Editing! — 72.75.100.232 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You edited my recent post on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (about my Navbox snafu) with the comment, No need to change sig/timestamp on earlier post, though. Restored that. … look at the edit history, and you'll see that I did not edit the comment to make any such revision manually … my Verizon DSL IP address changed yesterday because of a momentary power failure that rebooted by modem, which you'll find documented on the User pages for both IPs… — 72.75.70.147 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the tags on this article. It really needs a clean-up, but I may be too biased to do a good job myself. Bearian 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm pretty new to COIN. I notice you closed some entries, including Overton Loyd. Is this something that any editor can do? If so, do you think I would have been justified in closing that one myself (since another editor had already reported that the situation was resolved?) And what exactly is the process for doing so? Thanks for any tips… - Pete 05:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
A discussion which has concluded may be boxed with top {{ coit}} and bottom {{ coib}} markup:
The article and result fields are filled in for each section. An example from COI/N Archive 14:
"Resolved" "Inactive" and "Article deleted" are typical but not universal results. The templates are {{ subst}}ed (see template substitution) and will expand after a page save.
The {{ coit}} and {{ coib}} markup may be added either before or after a section is lifted and transplanted as a single block of text from the noticeboard to the archive selected from the COI/N archive toc.
Questions and answers about archiving. – Hypothetical debate. – 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of a possible conflict of interest related to the article below. Please do not modify it. |
Questions and answers about archiving→ See also: Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Show/hide boxes are unnecessary?
The Template:COI top and Template:COI bottom instructions are obscure and difficult to understand. Could they be made simpler and more straightforward? [ ~~~~ signature + timestamp (UTC) ]
[ Conclusion. ] |
The above is an archived debate of a possible conflict of interest. Please do not modify it. |
My mouse will no longer do massive copying and pasting. Fortunately, there are other editors with tougher ones. Maybe you're one of them? — Athaenara 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 15#EServer.org & Special:Linksearch/*.antislavery.eserver.org)
Athaenara -- I shall pass on any further immediate address to deleted links in the slavery-related articles. The past several days have been interesting but diversionary, and attention needs to be paid elsewhere. Late this month I shall return to this matter via talk pages on the individual articles. When we get around to that, I shall notify you and look forward to working with you on review of these links. Cheers, -- Jlockard 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I am delayed in returning to work on external links to slavery-related articles. Reality, deadlines, that sort of matter. There is, however, not the slightest rush here. Jlockard 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Recently User:Dking has resumed this activity -- see [4] and [5]. Also see similar edits by User:Cberlet: [6], [7], and [8]. -- Don't lose that number 07:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
→ In re various COI discussions including, among others, the following:
→ (In re: Victoria and Albert Museum sections (1) & (2) in COI/N Archive 12. — A.)
Hello, I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page. Also, if you can bear it, my To Do List has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to say something about VAwebteam's amazing image for the Ardabil Carpet article, but it really speaks for itself. — Athaenara ✉ 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
→ (In re: WP:COI issues on Tassajara Zen Mountain Center and request for a third opinion)
Hello! I´m thw1309. You asked for a third opignion about the article Tassajara. Please could you explain your opignion about the changes, which were removed on the article´s talkpage. -- Thw1309 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archive 5#Question about COI/N archiving. — A.
Hi Athaenara! Since you stopped archiving, the COI noticeboard is turning into a slum. It's now up to 280 kb, it has grass growing between the bricks, etc. Would you have any opinion on archiving by bot? I helped the WQA board to switch to that system in July, and of course WP:AN and WP:ANI do it that way. It would mean some issues may not be crisply resolved, and some people would miss that. It would also keep things current, and it's less work. A 12 day timeout might be considered (vs. 1 day for ANI, 2 days for AN). EdJohnston 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(* Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Archiving by bot?)
→ In re:
Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (
|
article |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
and
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#User Benderson2 and TREC.
On the TREC issue, it's starting to look that you might need some admin help on the article Talk page. It's unfortunate that COIN has not been had many patrollers lately. Maybe it's something about the vacation. Usually you get a few good blasts of indignation about the more inexcusable stuff, but it's been very quiet. (Except in some cases where people come to the noticeboard along with the issue). I've seen Jehochman around, but not too many other people. Even WP:RSN is rather dull these days. Maybe the TREC stuff will escalate up to a real noticeboard, and something will happen! Also the TREC issues seem to require very careful study of the references, which may discourage newcomers. The most blatant stuff is the behavior of the webmaster. EdJohnston 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: Anti-stuttering devices ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Special:Contributions/Tdkehoe.
Hi Athaenara, I found Anti-stuttering devices on Peer Review here with this red flag "The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something." I left {{ uw-coi}} on the author's talk page and am not sure if this should go to WP:COI/N or not. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: User:Tdkehoe and previous discussion above.
Hi Athaenara, back in September you looked at Anti-stuttering devices, whose primary author ( User:Tdkehoe) is head of a firm that makes said devices. I left a COI notice on his talk page then, we both did some cleanup of the article, and I listed the article at COI/N, but it was archived without any comments. The article is still very problematic, and he has also been working on Stuttering, which was demoted from Featured Article recently (see the FAR). Since the FAR he has been reverting / removing from Stuttering well-sourced material (based on peer-reviewed research) that goes against his products (see Talk:Stuttering).
Now SandyGeorgia (and, to a lesser extent, I) have stepped in, but I was wondering what advice you have here? Relist Anti-stuttering devices at COI/N? List Stuttering and/or User:Tdkehoe at COI/N? RfC the article? RfC the editor? All of the above? Run screaming to Jimbo? ;-) Any advice or help you could offer here would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance and happy Thanksgiving a day late, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
→ In re:
Geoeg (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (blocked indefinitely as of 7 November)
→ See also:
Requests for comment/Geoeg, where discussions on several noticeboards are linked.
You took the 3O note down, but you haven't comment on Talk:Vaníček analysis. Are you going to? Dicklyon 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Geoeg is now blocked for 3RR for 48 hours. But he has removed your COI tag from Petr Vanicek, and I have been advised to not touch it myself. I appreciate your support in dealing with this pushy newbie. Dicklyon 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: As the user is still tirelessly generating further antagonism ( even while blocked), I think it would be wise if you stopped responding to it. What do you think? — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: Appalachian Voices ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Thanks for helping me on the Appalachian Voices page! I was starting to get lonely!! D-rew ( talk) 02:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Moneybomb and user John J. Bulten ( talk · contribs).
See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. He's trying to change WP:V to justify inclusion of the material viewed as unreliably sourced. Gordonofcartoon 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: John J. Bulten ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Sorry, but would you be able to take a glance at this? I'm getting hassled on my Talk page now with another spurious line of argument: his trying to invoke WP:BLP for a fairly trivial comment I made. And he's still not accepting that his error is not something lying within complex nitpicks with rules, but is that complex rule-nitpicking is viewed as contentious in itself per WP:POINT and WP:GAME. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: deletion of AtHomeNet article. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtHomeNet.
This is the user Edenrage, and I can't figure out how to post a new post on this thing....
I'm kind of new at this, but I saw your name under the deletion for the page AtHomeNet, which was marked as ana advertisement. I amde sure the page only stated facts, and I lookad at the profiles for IBM, COke, and some other companies, and there pages had far more info which could be construed as advertisement. Everything on the AtHomenet page is verifiable, so how do I go about getting it undeleted? Also, if somehow it does not meet the criteria, please give me a specific example of how it does not.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
→ In re: user account
JMorton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log).
→ See also:
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 19#COI: Jack Morton Worldwide.
I've unblocked the above user (who you indefblocked), on the proviso that he avoid all articles to which he and his company are connected. I hope you don't mind! I did it on a proviso, however:
Request for unblock accepted, on the condition that the user does not edit any articles to which he or she has any connection (specifically, but not including, Jack Morton Worldwide). Any edits that even border on a conflict of interest will result in a permanent block.
Sound like a plan? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Athaenara, Ive been setting up a number of articles of charities in the Philippines, the latest one here... Childhope Asia Philippines ... but i wanted to add these to the section on Category:Organizations based in the Philippines... but I cant see how to add them or how to place the tags on the charity areticles after, can you pls explain how i can do this? kind regards Susanbryce ( talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)