This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Jayen, you moved the information about Destination Mecca off of Shah's page. The book contains information about Shah's life which is relevant to his biography. So why is it not appropriate to include it on Shah's page?-- Jlburton ( talk) 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a primary source containing potentially self-serving claims uncorroborated elsewhere. Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources. Cheers, -- J N 466 03:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And why did you delete the information about Gardner? All that stuff has documentation and sources. -- Jlburton ( talk) 03:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying Idries Shah said this, even though his father said this, citing his father, you're engaged in synthesis, because you don't have a secondary source comparing what Idries Shah said to what his father said. It's a form of original research. -- J N 466 03:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, all you had to do was cut out a few words from what i wrote, not all of it. Should i even bother to rewrite it or are you just going to remove it again? Do i need to use exact quotes or can i summarize the material? It does take time to make these contributions. If they are just going to be dumped by you based on technicalities, then i'm wondering if it's worth it to continue.-- Jlburton ( talk) 03:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what: here is the page i'm using as source material: why don't you look at what i wrote and see what can and cannot be used based on your view. p. 19 here http://books.google.com/books?id=dqd8NptJIIAC&q=idries+shah#v=snippet&q=idries%20shah&f=false -- Jlburton ( talk) 03:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with the page ... will have a look. -- J N 466 03:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And the statement about the Afghan minister belongs where i put it. Why are Elwell Sutton's opinions about Shah's lineaged placed in that section about Shah's life, but not the Afghan minister's? Also, who made you judge, jury and executioner on this article?-- Jlburton ( talk) 03:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I just wish you'd cite independent reliable secondary sources, rather than the Shahs themselves, or books they put out themselves. Wikipedia policies support me in that view. -- J N 466 03:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason I cite ES but not the Afghan minister in that section is that this is the section on The Sufis. ES' comment is on The Sufis (and from a scholarly secondary source), while the Afghan Minister's is not. The Afghan Minister's is on Shah as a person, and that is why it belongs in the general reception section. Cheers, -- J N 466 03:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For Lamond, see [1]. Thanks for the more precise witches/mushrooms reference in RP Graves, by the way. I had missed that, and it's improved that passage. -- J N 466 04:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Jayen, I thought my Wiki troubles were over will WillBeback finally being found out but not so. I have been tidying up the Lead and being alternately ignored or abused. I discovered that "the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" did not appear in the article and so removed it and replaced it with "by the end of 1973 the DLM was active in 55 countries". Which left me with "though it was sometimes described as a cult" which was too much without new religious movement. So I removed that and suggested in talk that we insert "new religious movement in the article so that we could reinsert it and "cult" in the lead. Now PatW has claimed on Jimbo's talk that I removed Jimbo's Feb 2011 "cult leader" edit which was removed by consensus amongst you and others without my involvement. Now PatW and Blade of the North are building up a head of steam to have me banned. Could you have a look. Momento ( talk) 22:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Will look into it. J N 466 11:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 02:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch ( talk) 02:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this interest you at all? If it does, I'd value any input you may offer? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi J, hope all's well with you.

Sorry to bother you, but if you have a free moment, do you think you could have a quick look at an issue with a new user Kristine-daggett about possible linkspam? She's a self-confessed intern with the best of intentions, and had been tasked with adding links about informative interviews with authors to relevant Wikipedia articles. Her supervisor and founder of the New Books Network Marshall Poe asked my advice, and of course I have little to offer. Regards, Esowteric+ Talk 18:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Marshall left a message on my talk page. Esowteric+ Talk 18:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again J, I just forewarned Jimbo on his talk page and saw that you have an interest in the affair: There may be another in-depth article coming up about Roth and Wikipedia (including the talk page) in the Washington Post. See Talk:Philip Roth#Google search result. In related news, R. J. Ellory is perhaps worth a forensic dig? Perhaps the flipside of the Roth coin? Regards, Esowteric+ Talk 09:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 17:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch ( talk) 17:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I've never given anyone a barnstar before. Thanks for doing what you do. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. J N 466 18:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks J: that was quick work. Have explained why I put the message at the page top: The user and two IPs were making individual edits to the article, not reverting others, and I'm not convinced that they were looking at the article talk page, the article edit history or even their own talk pages; but I did know that they were regularly checking the article. Thanks again. Regards, Esowteric+ Talk 09:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry to bother you again, J. Have you a moment to check out the New Books Network issue (see further up your talk page)? Sorry and thanks again, Eric: Esowteric+ Talk 14:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was torn, too. Esowteric+ Talk 15:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. I am just now reading about the situation with UntrikiWiki. I have a question, because you mentioned (critically I think) that they advertise leveraging relationships with the community. Is this a bad thing?

When I changed my username to protect my identity, DGG made the comment:

but in this case you have acquired a positive and important reputation from your work under the earlier name, not just article work but your many comments, and it is not unfair for you to use it.

Jimmy Wales has also previously mentioned at some point that a paid advocate should establish a "reputation" within the community. DGG seems to be suggesting that I should leverage relationships openly. Is the critical tone towards their use of relationships only because of their role with the WMF?

Just an honest question. I am not arguing for one way or another. This is King4057... Corporate Minion 02:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi; thanks for asking. Allow me to quote something I said a day or two ago on CREWE with regard to this situation:

...frankly, when I read passages like

"A positive Wikipedia article is invaluable SEO: it's almost guaranteed to be a top three Google hit. Surprisingly this benefit of writing for Wikipedia is underutilized, but relates exactly the lack of true expertise in the field. ... WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE NEEDED to navigate the complex maze surrounding 'conflict of interest' editing on Wikipedia. With more than eight years of experience, over 10,000 edits, and countless community connections we offer holistic Wikipedia services. untrikiwiki"

I am not particularly impressed either. The thing with Max (whom I have never met) is that he seems well connected within the Wikipedia community. But what he is doing and saying looks no different from what Greg Kohs said and wanted to do a few years ago (and was banned for). The whole thing just becomes a mockery when some people are allowed to do what others are not. It then becomes a question not of policy, not of what is right and wrong, but of who you know.

Does that make it clearer? We mustn't get into a situation where it is okay for some editors to write paid puff pieces for clients, whereas others are blocked on sight for wanting to do the same thing. To me that's different from editors realising that you have integrity as a person, and your having a corresponding reputation. If you are a trustworthy person, people should be entitled to believe that you're telling them the truth, based on past positive experience. Absolutely. But they shouldn't cut you slack in the sense of allowing you to do stuff that other people would be banned for. J N 466 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I am chewing on it myself. Because they use the word "positive" instead of "neutral" the implication is that they are using those relationships to push bias articles, rather than as a basis to get attention, collaboration and help from editors that trust them and value their work.

On the other hand, realistically, I write positive articles. Sometimes my articles include legal controversies [2] or layoffs [3], but they're still "positive." Who would hire someone to write a negative article on them?

Wikipedia's definition of "neutral" allows for positive articles, so long as you are working for an organization with a positive reputation in reliable sources. Corporate Minion 03:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I think of a mildly positive article as the default – every person has innate dignity and is worthy of human respect. Live and let live. (Somehow I am always reminded of the Indian trinity: Destroyer, Maintainer, Creator. Two of these are pro-let live.) J N 466 06:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it is a purely emotional/psychological response to seeing this kind of advertisement language associated with Wikipedia work. In traditional media PR, public relations firms boast publicly about getting their key messages in the media and securing positive coverage, but journalists don't care, because they can write whatever they want. If a Wikipedia consultant follows the WP:BRIGHTLINE, then they could advertise whatever they want and Wikipedians could rest easy knowing they will only achieve those goals to the extent that it supports the project. Corporate Minion 17:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the response is valid and has a basis in fact. Take a report like " Gibraltarpedia: A New Way To Market The Rock", or a quote like "The enthusiasm and conviction radiating from both the Min. for Tourism, Neil Costa and Clive Finlayson who came up with the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success." The Foundation advertises itself as a charitable educational enterprise, not a commercial one, and this sort of thing is simply not part of the Foundation's mission as advertised to the public. If a project like this were run on bona fide grounds, and aligned with the stated goals of this project, it would be run in cooperation with Gibraltar's Department of Education, not Gibraltar's Tourism Ministry. J N 466 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Aww, I see. It's everything in context, including the WMF connection. It caused me to take a second look at my website's service page of sorts, but I think mine has a respectful tone towards Wikipedia. It makes me wonder how Wikipedians would react if I published a case study - I would need to be careful to do it in a manner that is respectful to Wikipedia. Corporate Minion 14:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW - I'm pinging a few people for thoughts/opinions on these [4] [5] (see context here Would be interested in your thoughts. Corporate Minion 14:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi J, here's another author like Philip Roth, R. J. Ellory who is trying to get what he sees as libellous and harmful material removed from his BLP. See biography of living persons noticeboard. Regards, Esowteric+ Talk 09:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Have now got two detailed responses from Roger Ellory. They went to my talk page and I've copied them to BLP/N. Have changed a section template from facts disputed -> unbalanced. Regards, Esowteric+ Talk 11:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Like a ghost town at BLP/N, as you say elsewhere. Worth a second read. Esowteric+ Talk 15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Shit about to hit the fan at twitter? This could soon become "Disgraced author banned from Wikipedia." Esowteric+ Talk 17:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jimbo Wales and others reported by User:Müdigkeit (Result: Protected 3 days) - Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm pretty much just repeating what I said on AN, but I honestly see a big difference between WMUK promoting editing about culturally significant works which would be so even if they were separated from the institutions who hold them and things centering on one place. I really believe that offering a free lunch to Wikipedians and the public on this issue is promoting the public good and supplying unique information to the public at large. I think both of those things are commendable and very different from this whole affair.

Would love to hear your opinion if you're of a different mind regarding the issue, but I think WMUK as a whole are doing some pretty good stuff. Course, I have a COI, but hey, who doesn't?

P.s. My new medication is making it almost impossible to write sentences correctly. I've checked this one over but if I'm jumbling my words please try and translate. Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your writing is word-perfect, so don't worry. :) I agree with your definition of the key difference: if we are covering significant, prominent works – national treasures – then that's entirely within Wikipedia's mission, and completely different from a self-described tourism marketing project.

The only caveat I would have is that libraries, museums etc. are "places" too, and just like we get borderline notable garage bands wishing to inflate their notability through Wikipedia, the same can happen in this field. Hence I have severe misgivings about a sales pitch that highlights Wikipedia's SEO benefit, because that instrumentalises Wikipedia in the minds of everyone involved, and in the mind of the public. If collaborations are proposed or undertaken by Wikimedia UK, it should be very clear that the purpose we are doing this for is education: that we have made a needs assessment, and have found that this is a core area where we need better coverage. In other words, these projects should be driven by Wikipedia's needs (the public's needs), not the needs of those wanting to get more coverage in Wikipedia. And that is how it should be communicated in all public statements.

We should never, ever go to a potential partner with a pitch that says, hey, we can raise your SEO profile. There is a very great difference between a project on the V&A, covering world-famous exhibits of outstanding significance, and going to a minor private museum in a small town and telling them that we can get them click-throughs to their website, and cars in their car park, by getting them on the Wikipedia main page and writing an FA on them.

We should never market Wikipedia as a marketing instrument.

It's okay to mention that there can be synergies and mutual benefits, just like there can be benefits for academic publishers when scholars write academic articles citing academic works for us [6], but we should never go to people and say, "Hey, we're the no. 5 website, and we can get you free marketing. Interested?" (Especially if there is private contract work attached to this.) Educational purpose genuinely and credibly has to be the primary consideration, or Wikipedia's reputation will go down the toilet very quickly.

The problem is that this is a continuum, where at one end of the spectrum it is completely above board – no one would look askance at us for writing articles on major pieces of art in the V&A – and at the other end of the spectrum it looks completely flaky, and comes across as a plug bought with a free lunch and a few tenners slipped into someone's pocket. Wikimedia UK would be well advised to err on the side of caution whenever we endorse or promote anything. -- J N 466 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed you can say that with a straight face given your recent edits - you clearly are "looking askance" at such work, or is Birmingham just not good enough compared to the V&A? You are not on Wikipediocracy here, please try to keep some semblance of logic to your edits. Johnbod ( talk) 14:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ffs just tell the man why he's wrong. Then other people can see it too. Then they can decide on a consensus. Then we don't have to bicker about this from now until the end of time. Don't agree with you Jayen but I'm going to walk away from the computer now before someone burns me with a pitchfork. Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Birmingham Society of Artists is several orders of magnitude more obscure than the V&A ... but fair enough. You're missing the point though: what I said is do not market Wikipedia as a marketing tool. Not to the Gibraltar Ministry of Tourism, and not to the Royal Birmingham Society of Artists. And as far as Gibraltar is concerned, someone in Wikimedia UK clearly has done that. J N 466 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen. We cannot "market Wikipedia as a marketing tool." At the same it can be impossible to determine motive, to untangle motive from editing practices and what can come out of attempts to do so is a witch hunt. In my opinion, Wikipedia must have with in its editing standards including what's on the main page stringent methods for creating the best (including neutral) encyclopedia, if we don't have that kind of tough standard already, so that motive does not have to be considered. There are aspects of editing Wikipedia which cannot be controlled except in ways that are not humane or civilized. We have to stop believing we can control those issues and make sure our internal mechanisms are in place and stringent enough to support the best encyclopedia possible. Idealistic probably, and just a thought. ( olive ( talk) 17:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

I see this discussion is part of something larger so my thoughts may be even more idealistic than I thought.( olive ( talk) 18:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

@Johnbod , who says "You are not on Wikipediocracy here, please try to keep some semblance of logic to your edits. " Could you explain the faulty logic? This is a perfect example of the kind of bullying I complained about on Jimbo's page. I see no fault in the logic. JN makes the perfectly sound point that there is a spectrum from large museums and educational institutions like the BL at one end, to much much smaller institutions who may be looking for promotion only. And JN says "We should never, ever go to a potential partner with a pitch that says, hey, we can raise your SEO profile. " What is wrong with what he is saying here? Is someone here claiming that we should be going to potential partners with this pitch? Hestiaea ( talk) 18:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what Jayen was saying, but it wasn't that. Why should smaller museums "be looking from promotion only", and not larger ones?. The smaller ones typically have infinitely smaller websites and budgets than large institutions, and often represent arguably a larger gap in our encyclopedic coverage, with much poorer articles on the institution and no articles on specific objects. But no one here seems to care about that, instead obsessing about some free sandwiches. It is not about SEO coverage for the institution - they want their own website to be the top hit, which it will normally be anyway. Of course new articles on objects will probably take the top place if there is no museum page on them, and sometimes if there is. Museums want better online coverage of their collections, and so do we. COI museum editing is essentially restricted to museums we don't have a relationship with. Johnbod ( talk) 22:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My thought was that if we cover a borderline-notable museum that has hardly attracted any coverage and that, frankly (much like the proverbial garage band) nobody is interested in, then the museum gains much more from the coverage than Wikipedia: and in fact, the volunteer effort could be far better spent (e.g. on a collaboration with sex-ed experts to get our sexuality articles upgraded, which get thousands of views a day and are of particular interest to young people. yet are of very uneven quality). J N 466 14:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your response at Talk:Will.i.am. Too often people are too entrenched in their positions to recognise a valid point the other side makes. I'm just as guilty of this (or more) as everybody else, so it is not meant as some attack-disguised-as-a-compliment; but there are so many discussions where people try to support their positions with what they believe to be good sources, only to be totally ignored, that it comes as a welcome surprise when that doesn't happen. Fram ( talk) 14:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. :) And I sympathise with your recent suggestion that we should cover it somewhere, without making it the first (and bold) words in the article. Cheers! J N 466 14:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)