Hi, there's some active editing and discussion going on about the Sageworks article at Talk:Sageworks, and you're invited to participate. Some editors commenting in the recent AFD have already been invited by another editor, and i am just making a point to contact the others, including you, to avoid any appearance of selectivity. -- do ncr am 22:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you. --CorporateM
You appear to be misusing Wikipedia to attack a company, Sageworks. If you cannot edit from a neutral point of view, you will have to stop. Wikipedia is not a place to publish personal reflections on data security or to publicize non notable court cases. Jehochman Talk 10:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Harald. Sorry if I came in a bit brash before. In my defense, it was 5 a.m. for me!
Here is the explanation of sourcing on Wikipedia I promised. Please keep in mind, I'm not here to argue about them; rather I encourage you to read the policies and guidelines themselves and maybe ask someone else for help if you have any questions (someone you are not in an editing dispute with).
WP:PRIMARY discusses primary sources. A primary source is published by someone closely affiliated with the events being covered. On company articles this can include the company website, annual reports, press releases, but also judges, lawyers, competitors, non-profit advocates, patent records, court records, and others that may be independent from the company, but are not independent of the events being covered. Acceptable uses for primary sources include infobox data like revenues, number of offices, etc, to supplement a secondary sources and other common sense applications.
Secondary sources are the very lifeblood of Wikipedia and should be the primary basis of all Wikipedia page. They often research and interpret primary sources. They include academic, reporters, historians, books and others that are considered credible, independent sources and are not in any way involved in the events being covered. You can add almost anything to Wikipedia that is covered by a credible, independent, secondary source.
Tertiary sources Tertiary sources like Wikipedia and other encyclopedias source content from secondary sources, repeat their information and cite it. Some professionally edited tertiary sources can be used with caution, though Wikipedia itself should never be cited.
Hope this helps. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see the result of the AN3 complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Harald Forkbeard and user:CorporateM (Result: Protected). Your edits raise concern that you may have some personal animosity against Sageworks. I protected the article and removed the unsourced negative claim "without the explicit permission of the business owners". It would be normal that any data releases would be covered by signed contracts between Sageworks and the firms whose data it acquires. Do you suppose that Sageworks routinely violates those agreements? Should Wikipedia be making that claim? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal POV. Please ensure that your further edits are neutral. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
This is obscure company. Are you involved in these lawsuits as a party, lawyer, or some other capacity? Your tone suggests you might be. If so, you need to stop being involved on Wkipedia. Jehochman Talk 05:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sageworks provides data for private firms.7. Unfortunately, Sageworks masks firm names, though each firm has a unique identifier allowing us to construct a panel.8 The main drawback of anonymity for our purposes is that we cannot observe transitions from private to public status in the Sageworks database. We will later describe how we assemble a dataset of such transitions from other sources. Sageworks obtains data not from the private firms themselves, which could raise selection concerns, but from a large number of accounting firms that feed data for all their unlisted corporate clients into Sageworks’ database. Selection thus operates at the level of the accounting firm and not of their clients. Sageworks co-operates with most of the largest national accounting firms as well as hundreds of regional players, but with proportionately fewer of the many thousand local accountants who service the smallest....[emphasis added by doncram]
Ten days later...in my opinion EdJohnston is exactly right. There is no source saying that Sageworks obtains and resells data without consent, or that original business-owners are being duped or not being informed by their accountants or other advisors who might pass on their data. It is just your and my suspicion that such is going on. Please see my comment just now at Talk:Sageworks. There is compromise language in that, the most which can be said. -- do ncr am 02:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Sageworks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Amaury ( talk) 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
McDonald of Kindness (
talk)
23:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Kuru
(talk)
01:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
(don't copy and paste it from the editing window by the way), as said in the notice. Also, replace your reason here with the reason that you want to be unblocked.
McDonald of Kindness (
talk)
20:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Hi. Please see my comment added to #Your editing at Sageworks section above, and my comment at Talk:Sageworks. I'd be happy to talk out any of this further with you, on Talk pages here or by email or skype or phone. For any of the latter three, please send an email to me to get started. Email using a link for that, at left side of my User and User talk pages, links which are there because I choose to set my account preferences to allow emails that way (i note yours is not set that way, which is fine). If you email me, the only privacy you'll lose is that I will get to see your email address (i guess whatever is the address you gave to Wikipedia). And I will email you back and you will have my email address.
I'm happy to talk about the editing at Sageworks and the other editors involved there. And I do recommend you go edit in other topic areas for a while, and expect you'd gradually get more comfortable about the other editors and what they're doing and saying at Sageworks and its Talk page. But actually further or instead, i would like to explore with you, off-Wikipedia, how i and maybe you could take some steps to possibly confirm and expose what you are concerned and pretty sure about (while i am concerned and suspect, but am not sure about). I'd like to hear more about what and how you know, and i'd share what i could possibly do. Anyhow, new assertions cannot be stated in Wikipedia (which has to give the accepted, general views usually, while it can sometimes report factually that other views are held by some). New assertions have to come out first in blogs and news stories and other types of publications. No problem if you're not interested or it's not convenient or whatever, about emailing. I'll watchlist here and would see replies about other stuff. And you can post at my Talk any time, especially if it seems I might have missed something here. Cheers, -- do ncr am 02:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Harald. I noticed diff of what you mean right away, and was a bit irked by the edit summary, which was pointy and over-stated. Because there has been a ton of COI and POV editing at that article before, and CM should really know that already, although CM was not involved until just recently. Hmm, I would be happy to say so at CM's Talk or at Talk:Sageworks. But really we don't need the POV-check tag there calling for others to come in, methinks. Also CM is really not associated with the firm, absolutely not; he edits like that consistently across hundreds or thousands of firm articles. And yeah, mea culpa about going on with academic/scientific type stuff in the article. That is what I was interested in and thought was relevant, when I first noticed Sageworks when browsing AFDs.
Please get yourself familiar with wikipedia policies about original research. All information added to wikipedia must come from reliable sources. Wikipedian's knowledge is not a valid reference in wikipedia. You are editing wikipedia for over a year. As I see you have already been in a long conflict because you don't understand this fundamental policy. Time to learn the rules or you will eventually get yourself blocked from editing. -M.Altenmann >t 02:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple personal attacks by user:Harald Forkbeard that derail a RfC-M.Altenmann >t
Your recent editing history at Veganism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 19:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog ( talk) 19:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, there's some active editing and discussion going on about the Sageworks article at Talk:Sageworks, and you're invited to participate. Some editors commenting in the recent AFD have already been invited by another editor, and i am just making a point to contact the others, including you, to avoid any appearance of selectivity. -- do ncr am 22:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you. --CorporateM
You appear to be misusing Wikipedia to attack a company, Sageworks. If you cannot edit from a neutral point of view, you will have to stop. Wikipedia is not a place to publish personal reflections on data security or to publicize non notable court cases. Jehochman Talk 10:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Harald. Sorry if I came in a bit brash before. In my defense, it was 5 a.m. for me!
Here is the explanation of sourcing on Wikipedia I promised. Please keep in mind, I'm not here to argue about them; rather I encourage you to read the policies and guidelines themselves and maybe ask someone else for help if you have any questions (someone you are not in an editing dispute with).
WP:PRIMARY discusses primary sources. A primary source is published by someone closely affiliated with the events being covered. On company articles this can include the company website, annual reports, press releases, but also judges, lawyers, competitors, non-profit advocates, patent records, court records, and others that may be independent from the company, but are not independent of the events being covered. Acceptable uses for primary sources include infobox data like revenues, number of offices, etc, to supplement a secondary sources and other common sense applications.
Secondary sources are the very lifeblood of Wikipedia and should be the primary basis of all Wikipedia page. They often research and interpret primary sources. They include academic, reporters, historians, books and others that are considered credible, independent sources and are not in any way involved in the events being covered. You can add almost anything to Wikipedia that is covered by a credible, independent, secondary source.
Tertiary sources Tertiary sources like Wikipedia and other encyclopedias source content from secondary sources, repeat their information and cite it. Some professionally edited tertiary sources can be used with caution, though Wikipedia itself should never be cited.
Hope this helps. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see the result of the AN3 complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Harald Forkbeard and user:CorporateM (Result: Protected). Your edits raise concern that you may have some personal animosity against Sageworks. I protected the article and removed the unsourced negative claim "without the explicit permission of the business owners". It would be normal that any data releases would be covered by signed contracts between Sageworks and the firms whose data it acquires. Do you suppose that Sageworks routinely violates those agreements? Should Wikipedia be making that claim? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal POV. Please ensure that your further edits are neutral. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
This is obscure company. Are you involved in these lawsuits as a party, lawyer, or some other capacity? Your tone suggests you might be. If so, you need to stop being involved on Wkipedia. Jehochman Talk 05:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sageworks provides data for private firms.7. Unfortunately, Sageworks masks firm names, though each firm has a unique identifier allowing us to construct a panel.8 The main drawback of anonymity for our purposes is that we cannot observe transitions from private to public status in the Sageworks database. We will later describe how we assemble a dataset of such transitions from other sources. Sageworks obtains data not from the private firms themselves, which could raise selection concerns, but from a large number of accounting firms that feed data for all their unlisted corporate clients into Sageworks’ database. Selection thus operates at the level of the accounting firm and not of their clients. Sageworks co-operates with most of the largest national accounting firms as well as hundreds of regional players, but with proportionately fewer of the many thousand local accountants who service the smallest....[emphasis added by doncram]
Ten days later...in my opinion EdJohnston is exactly right. There is no source saying that Sageworks obtains and resells data without consent, or that original business-owners are being duped or not being informed by their accountants or other advisors who might pass on their data. It is just your and my suspicion that such is going on. Please see my comment just now at Talk:Sageworks. There is compromise language in that, the most which can be said. -- do ncr am 02:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Sageworks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Amaury ( talk) 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
McDonald of Kindness (
talk)
23:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Kuru
(talk)
01:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
(don't copy and paste it from the editing window by the way), as said in the notice. Also, replace your reason here with the reason that you want to be unblocked.
McDonald of Kindness (
talk)
20:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Hi. Please see my comment added to #Your editing at Sageworks section above, and my comment at Talk:Sageworks. I'd be happy to talk out any of this further with you, on Talk pages here or by email or skype or phone. For any of the latter three, please send an email to me to get started. Email using a link for that, at left side of my User and User talk pages, links which are there because I choose to set my account preferences to allow emails that way (i note yours is not set that way, which is fine). If you email me, the only privacy you'll lose is that I will get to see your email address (i guess whatever is the address you gave to Wikipedia). And I will email you back and you will have my email address.
I'm happy to talk about the editing at Sageworks and the other editors involved there. And I do recommend you go edit in other topic areas for a while, and expect you'd gradually get more comfortable about the other editors and what they're doing and saying at Sageworks and its Talk page. But actually further or instead, i would like to explore with you, off-Wikipedia, how i and maybe you could take some steps to possibly confirm and expose what you are concerned and pretty sure about (while i am concerned and suspect, but am not sure about). I'd like to hear more about what and how you know, and i'd share what i could possibly do. Anyhow, new assertions cannot be stated in Wikipedia (which has to give the accepted, general views usually, while it can sometimes report factually that other views are held by some). New assertions have to come out first in blogs and news stories and other types of publications. No problem if you're not interested or it's not convenient or whatever, about emailing. I'll watchlist here and would see replies about other stuff. And you can post at my Talk any time, especially if it seems I might have missed something here. Cheers, -- do ncr am 02:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Harald. I noticed diff of what you mean right away, and was a bit irked by the edit summary, which was pointy and over-stated. Because there has been a ton of COI and POV editing at that article before, and CM should really know that already, although CM was not involved until just recently. Hmm, I would be happy to say so at CM's Talk or at Talk:Sageworks. But really we don't need the POV-check tag there calling for others to come in, methinks. Also CM is really not associated with the firm, absolutely not; he edits like that consistently across hundreds or thousands of firm articles. And yeah, mea culpa about going on with academic/scientific type stuff in the article. That is what I was interested in and thought was relevant, when I first noticed Sageworks when browsing AFDs.
Please get yourself familiar with wikipedia policies about original research. All information added to wikipedia must come from reliable sources. Wikipedian's knowledge is not a valid reference in wikipedia. You are editing wikipedia for over a year. As I see you have already been in a long conflict because you don't understand this fundamental policy. Time to learn the rules or you will eventually get yourself blocked from editing. -M.Altenmann >t 02:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple personal attacks by user:Harald Forkbeard that derail a RfC-M.Altenmann >t
Your recent editing history at Veganism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 19:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog ( talk) 19:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)