This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I initially saw Mitzvah to kohanim to sound silver trumpets and started trying to improve the article adding copy and refs (which I have now removed), and initiating a RM to a WP:COMMONNAME, but then a duplicate of the article on a private website http://kehuna.org/silver-trumpets/ with accompanying advert appeared: http://kehuna.org/trumpet-order-page/ "The price of the trumpet is 1,750.00$ (subject to change), and requires 2 weeks for delivery (US orders)." etc. ...
User MJDS has made a few edits now to Dominatrix page promoting her own services as a professional dominatrix, which I have reverted. She is also now using her own user space as an advert, and I fear may resume editing in article space. IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 11:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I discovered this article (as I often find potential COI issues) at the copyright problems board. The copyright issues I detected have been removed and revdeleted, but I noticed what looks like an awful lot of puffery (one issue corrected; one noted at the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imagini). I'm trying to knock out some of the nearly 40 day backlog at CP and don't have time to look. I know that no one here may want to take this up, but just in case I thought I'd drop it off. :) It could use an experienced eye! -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Gil Lopes is the principle of www.showbras.com.br. He is claiming (quite likely correctly) that João Gilberto has been under showbras's representation (or something like that) for a quarter century. While this may be true, Mr. Lopes hasn't provided any WP:RS about this, and I'm having trouble getting him to understand why we need more that just his say-so along with pages on his website. Could I have a hand with this please? -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 20:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll say more about what is happening. For 25 years my company Showbras, cared for the management of the artist Joao Gilberto. This is public knowledge, we were quoted by major newspapers, trade worldwide and signed all the albums recorded by the artist during this period, as producer or executive producer. In the data sheet of the disks is referred to management. In addition to posters of important presentations are published on the company website. The site of the artist, the artist's most complete site with bio, photos and press material, including major newspapers published the world's environment is Showbras, for obvious reasons. I presume that before all this would be natural that the information in the Encyclopedia of the artist could use as a reference we have. I could not take pictures and publish contracts on Wikipedia, I can do is bring the information to cite a source here and the site of the artist, the most complete site, repeat. I do not suppose there is a conflict of interest in being myself the owner of Showbras simply because Showbras is a company with more than 30 years and several important Brazilian artists in its cast as it is easy to check the website of ShowBras. What I present is the reference site of Joao Gilberto, not the site of Showbras.
Anyway, until this is understood, I did not tell the Showbras or me in the article. -- Gil Lopes ( talk) 02:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Then how do I do? I have to sell Showbras that my contributions are allowed on Joao Gilberto? Should I ask someone I know to go on Wikipedia and write the truth? My testimony to the Wikipedia is censored by the fact that I have participated in the story? My company is perceived as being my own person and therefore can not be cited as actually accomplished? I think the rules are being read and interpreted the wrong way . And please, i would like you consider your own rules: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article". That is it! We are talking about exactly these, so...-- Gil Lopes ( talk) 15:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear sir, thank you for your interest in the subject, I did more than I should, I occupied my time on improving the information in Wikipedia in Portuguese and in English, the result is a big hassle. First the disrespectful treatment that Wikipedia has me down, the violent way in which it cuts and especially the insistence on ignoring the issue and treat it in a way so vile. We're simply talking about the greatest Brazilian artist. I too have to prove what is in the public domain, I think too much fiddling with pages created in the environment ShowBras, think over what they are asking me. I have fulfilled all the requirements when I spoke in cnflito tried to join a series of citations, doubted unjustly, unfairly cut. I'll put an end, do what you want, do not go Criative Commons, I do not agree with it, I realize that this is actually an option from the Wikipedia. Manifest myself in other forums on the subject. But thank you very much.-- 189.60.189.35 ( talk) 01:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This IP address has inserted external references to an ebook guide published by convicted criminal Perry Belcher and has deleted the record of Belchers conviction for a laundry list of health-related fraud from the entry on Belchers criminal enterprise [ [1]] - as noted on the talk page [ page] there is a sustained pattern of deletions to hide Belchers criminal past and current, ongoing probation for Internet-related fraud and there also appears to be a general pattern of inserting links to external commercial sites owned or controlled by Belcher from several IP adresses going back to 2008 when Perry Belcher was editing the Wiki articles on himself 80.202.234.120 ( talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Today a new editor, who says that she is the article's subject, has arrived. First she made a total overhaul to a version that was very much like a personal web page. When that was reverted she blanked the page a couple of times. I semi-protected for a week to bring a halt to this without needing to actually block her. She has since expressed on her talk page a desire to clean up the page about herself.
I wrote a fairly long personal welcome, hopefully explaining a bit the situation. I'm hoping that she comes back with a willingness to work with Wikipedia, instead of working against us. To this end, assuming that she is willing to take things slower, could I get a person or two willing to assist her in improving the article within Wikipedia's needs? - TexasAndroid ( talk) 19:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The IP editing claims to be (on the talk page) a VP of this company correcting "inaccuracies". His edits were unsourced and he removed sourced information, so I have been reverting him. However, I don't really know anything about this matter and now he has posted some sources on the talk page. Some of his changes may therefore actually be justified, but I don't feel competent to judge for myself. I had previous posted a note on the talkpage of the Film WikiProject, but have gotten no response. Perhaps someone here can have a look at this situation. Thanks. Guillaume2303 ( talk) 09:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Name suggests account has COI. Only edits besides those to Mike Turzai (the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House) are to Jim Christiana (another Republican Pennsylvania House member). Three edits to Mike Turzai [6] [7] [8] sought to remove a reliable source describing the remarks and add an ex post facto unsourced explanation to Turzai's remarks on Voter ID. In fact, Turzai's remarks have been described as a "smoking gun" in several sources (see [9], [10]). Additionally, it might be worth taking a look at whether this account is in violation of WP:ROLE. Because I don't know who is editing with the account, I can't say for sure whether this is an impermissible shared account. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
User has declared their connection to the company that is the subject of the article. User was warned in April about the COI guidelines, but continues their pattern of removing anything resembling criticism in the article and rewritting it to resemble an advert. WegianWarrior ( talk) 06:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Editor stated in a now deleted edit ( here's a copy), "I am the creator of the deleted article and Senior Writer for IAPMO, the organization that publishes the Uniform Solar Energy Code. All information in the Wikipedia entry is accurate." That was in response to an article I marked for G12 deletion (a copyvio).
The understandable lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines has most likely popped up in the rest of their edits and I need help sifting through the edits, created articles, and uploaded files. There's only 76 in total (not included the deleted ones) so it should be too bad. I'm rather busy at work today and won't have time to go through them all right now. OlYeller21 Talktome 17:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've got a user Sk8terguy27 who's created and edited Tom Rice ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) primarily, if not solely, for promotional purposes. The article has been tagged CSD G11, and I think the user needs to be blocked. Can someone take action on this user and article? DRAGON 280 ( TALK/ CONTRIBS) 04:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The situation isn't incredibly problematic, but is worth keeping an eye on in terms of balance and bias. An external link was added by an anonymous user, with a glowing edit summary about its author. The JPS talk to me 17:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Nathana has created a draft submission (submitted while I was typing) at AfC of an article that they obviously have a connection with per their username. Based on the evidence, it appears that this user is a representative of this musician or might be the musician himself. On to the article itself: it's not a blatant violations of policies, however it has no references and doesn't really appear to be written following the manual of style (I know that none of these are extremely bad issues, I though I would just summarize the condition of the sub). I'd like to know what action to take on the now-on-hold submission. Thanks,
Nathan2055
talk -
contribs
16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is being closed by Orange Mike, an uninvolved admin.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that
User:Abhayakara has a conflict of interest, albeit a non-fiduciary one. On the other hand, it is impossible to miss that both
Abhayakara and
Vritti have much more serious problems with maintaining a
neutral point of view in this
biography of a living person; and it seems to me that
Uzma Gamal has almost as strong a problem with NPOV. I am closing this with the advice that both Abhayakara and Vritti cease editing this article directly, bringing any proposed edits to the talk page of the article, and if necessary to the BLP noticeboard; and a very strong request that Uzma do the same. (Vritti, I'd also suggest you look at
our rules about original research and synthesis: what seems to you the only clear interpretation of your sacred texts and traditions, may seem less clearcut to another person.) --
Orange Mike |
Talk
This editor acknowledges COI with respect to this article as a devotee of Michael Roach -- see e.g. his user page. The difficulty however is that acknowledging the COI has not led to any restraint on his part in editing the article, sometimes aggressively. That's one element of the behavioral aspect of things that I'd like assistance with; another is his habit of describing me as "not neutral" (because I don't agree with the way he wants to edit the article) -- examples here. FTR, I do not have a COi w/rt Roach -- I had never heard of him before the article was brought up on BLPN a couple of months ago. Given the mode in which this article is being edited, one would think that the COI guideline doesn't exist at all. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 06:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: X2. This is the same crap carried on from the article and talk page. All of these editors should drop it and let those that are not COI look at the article and fix it.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 11:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Uzma Gamal suggests, quite sensibly, that what this thread needs is additional views about whether Abhayakara has a COI on this article. I think it's obvious that he does, not least because he recognizes himself that he does, as here where he notes that he is the IT director for Roach's Diamond Mountain Center and identifies Roach as his "main teacher", having known him for more than a decade. I'd be grateful if other editors (regulars here, especially) can offer their views. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been a week since this accusation was raised. User:Nomoskedasticity continues to use my alleged COI as an excuse not to engage in constructive debate about what should appear on the Michael Roach article, and as a result the article contains a clearly libelous implication. I have assiduously followed the guidelines here. I have been careful not to remove viewpoints from the article that are supported by references. I have asked for and gotten review of the article on WP:BLPN, WP:3 and somewhat tangentially here on WP:COIN. All of this review has come out against User:Nomoskedasticity's POV. Yet he still persists in editing as if he is neutral and I am editing with POV, because of this COI accusation. If you really think that I am editing with COI, say so, and I'll go away. If not, please put this dog to bed. Abhayakara ( talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
A contributor perhaps associated with Life Time Fitness has been contributing mightily but the long lists of all the locations looks like advertising.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a Conflict of Interest case with respect to Famousdog, and his edits on the God helmet" page. I have tried to resolve conflicts with this user before, and have even raised a Conflict of Interest on the relevant talk page, as indicated on the wiki page giving guidelines for handling these issues.
This content was removed on the grounds that it could "out" Famousdog’s personal identity. I assure you that this was not malicious, but simply a mistake. I have read that in order for a Conflict of Interest to be filed, one has to demonstrate that the user has such an interest. I have ample evidence to demonstrate Famousdog’s conflicting interest, but posting it openly would violate Famousdog's privacy - and the Wikipedia rules. One exception is a talk page where Famousdog openly states the belief that Dr. Persinger, the inventor of the God Helmet: "... is a misguided and a poor scientist" Here is the link to that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun&oldid=47806805
On that page, Famousdog states their position, and they have been editing to keep the God Helmet page in agreement with his perspective since November of 2010.
I am not interested in "outing" anyone, especially if there is a chance that their professional reputation is compromised. I prefer to handle these situations through co-operation. However, Famousdog has consistently negated any such attempt, even leaving misleading information in place after a correct quotation was shown. One of Famousdog's edits said that a commercial device was tested for God Helmet effects, when it was actually tested to see if it changed emotional responses to graphic images, a study that has never been done with the God Helmet, nor have any such effects ever been claimed for it. This appears to be a piece of data fakery, from the library instead of the lab, though both kinds are equally unethical.
A quick inspection of the history of the page, including the relevant Talk Page, should make Famousdog’s hostility towards the God Helmet obvious, and raise a suspicion of a conflict of interest in any unbiased editor. Famousdog consistently uses judgmental terms which bias the content negatively, such as the word 'claimed', which is specifically noted as a word to avoid on the POV page. Presumably, this is done to further their POV. My every attempt at making the page less biased has met with quick reversion of the content. I prefer to avoid an edit war, but it seems impossible without allowing Famousdog’s perspective to dominate, and Famousdog’s irrelevant and sometimes distorted information to remain in place. Both options seem equally inappropriate.
In addition, Famousdog has little knowledge of the technology discussed in the page. Famousdog consistently adds information that is incorrect or simply not relevant. In addition, any information that corrects Famousdog's interpretations are removed, in one case because Famousdog thought the editorial team of the source (a reputable journal) to be a "quack company". Famousdog appears to avail himself of any excuse to revert changes they doesn't agree with.
Any subject which has been the subject of an academic debate (such as this) should have both sides considered equally. However, when the content of the page is predicated on the belief that the God Helmet inventor's work is 'poor' and 'misguided' science, there is clearly a conflict of interest and individuals who rely upon Wikipedia as a reference are seriously misinformed. Because of Famousdog’s limited knowledge on the subject matter, Famousdog's efforts, even if they are well-intentioned, do exactly that. Famousdog’s low opinion of the God Helmet experiements, together with their dominance of the page through these long efforts (93 edits over 21 months, at last count) make the page more than a little biased. I have not added the Biased tag, because the last time it was in place for this page, Famousdog replaced it the same day one editor removed it.
I would also like to add that this same editor has also edited the pages for neurotheology and the page for Dr. Persinger, also introducing bias into them.
I have asked for third-party comments on the Talk Page, but I have not received any. Therefore I request that an administrator review the page and consider Famousdog's activity. My hope is that they will be able to end the consistent hostility the page shows towards it's subject, and help return the page to an unbiased position. Finally, I would like to know, as I said above, how I present evidence of a Conflict of Interest involving personal information about an editor without violating the Wiki rules. For the record, this is a conflict of interest action. Thank you. Ksirok ( talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been a very active Wikipedia editor lately and I came to this page because of my interest in the subject. It looks like Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia rules. It does look like he has a strong bias. His edits do make the page biased. That kind of editing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. After reading what others have said here, I agree that you should carry on providing facts and references about the God Helmet. The negative information all derives from the study in Sweden, news reports about it and a review article by Aaen-Stockdale. It seems that the Aaen-stockdale article has a misquote about a study of responses to photos(I looked it up). Because of this, the Aaen-Stockdale article isn't really a reliable source. It may be published in a worthwhile magazine, but the Aaen-Stockdale article obviously has one or more mistakes in it. The God Helmet page should have the mistaken quote from Aaen-Stockdale removed and the quote from Gendle and McGrath used instead. Just because Aaen-Stodale got it wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to also. In fact, replacing a mistaken quotation with an accurate one would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia no matter what page we're talking about. Improving Wikipedia is everyone's goal, and accuracy is the first order of business. If a source has a mistake, it shouldn't be used. Famousdog's reverts (or is it edit warring?) of the corrected quotation show a strong bias. You should continue editing to keep the page accurate. However, bias is not the same thing as conflict of interest, although I can see how they might look the same in this case. If Famousdog persists, you might consider mediation, as that appears to be the recommended process for Wikipedia. Do carry on if you are sure of your facts, but this is probably not a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia rules. I think you should add the biased and/or NPOV tag (but NOT the COI tag) to the page, as it is biased editing. If I have time, I may do a little editing of this or related pages myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.181.216 ( talk) 03:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe the user LisaThorne has a conflict of interest with respect to their editing of the article Ivan Massow. LisaThorne may also edit from the IP 81.137.239.209, who on 19th July systematically removed several edits by Welsh-marches. The material which was removed included information from reliable sources that could be said to be not flattering to the article's subject, for example here. I reverted these removals, then shortly afterwards LisaThorne removed great chunks of sourced information here. Again, all the material that was removed could be said to be not flattering to the article's subject. I reverted, LisaThorne reverted back. I reverted again (3rd time), this time leaving not only an explicit edit summary (again) but also advice and a warning on LisaThorne's talk page. This has been ignored and I was reverted again. Not only does LisaThorne systematically remove from the article any information that could be said to be not flattering to the article's subject (regardless of whether or not it comes from a reliable source), they also add information which presents the opposite (positive) view, such as here, and add links direct to the article subject's own business webpages, such as here and here. Additionally, LisaThorne's talk page has several notices informing them of speedy deletion proposals relating to articles which are all the names of Ivan Massow's businesses. LisaThorne has also displayed similar editing further back in the Ivan Massow article's history, specifically on the 3rd and 4th of September 2011, where the pattern of reverting edits by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is similar to the recent activity. I shall inform LisaThorne that I have started this thread. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sicap is a probably not notable technology company (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sicap). All or most edits by Katestoney seem to have the purpose of promoting this company throughout Wikipedia by means of external or internal links (e.g., [24], to take one edit at random), and most of these changes appear highly questionable in view of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV, among other relevant policies. I am considering rolling back these edits and blocking the account. What do others think? Sandstein 09:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed some recent edits to the article University of Bedfordshire by a new user, Webteambeds ( talk · contribs). Mostly the edits look valuable, constructive and informative, but I did notice the user has "updated" the reputation section, with some older critical material now removed. So I thought it might be worth an experienced WP:COI specialist just having a quick look, and perhaps gently introducing the new user to our COI policy. Jheald ( talk) 10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out your concerns. We would like to clarify that it is the University of Bedfordshire that is updating this page and we are happy that this is known. Our original login was to enable any of our webteam to do the work but on the suggestion of Fayedizard ( talk)have changed this to more clearly identify who is doing it, something many others don’t do.
We have been overhauling and adding to the information about the University ourselves because no one else appears to be doing it. It has not been overhauled recently and so contained broken links and out-of-date information which had little relevance to the current institution, although was possibly of historic interest.
Before making changes we looked at many other University entries and have adapted the format and structure they use and have drafted similar content, so that readers have as full a picture of Bedfordshire as they do of others. Please see these:
We can understand the concerns that you have about these changes, but as Wikipedia is an open-access format you are able to change anything that you feel might not be suitable – however I’d ask you to look at the University sites above and compare our content with them, so that we are not represented differently from these. We do not see this as a conflict of interest as much of the information we have used is readily available and could easily have been drawn upon by someone who wanted to overhaul and update our site for us. Unfortunately no one has.
I think we would consider including the information that we now offer the opportunity for people to study for part-time degrees in the evenings at our campuses to be a fact rather than an opinion so we’d like to keep that in please.
We also understand your concerns about information critical of the University which has been removed – we will reinstate this today. However as it relates to Luton University, a former incarnation of this institution, and events eight years ago we feel that while these are a matter of historical record they have little contemporary relevance and give an out-of-date impression of the University of Bedfordshire as it is today.
Hopefully you understand where we are coming from here, if no one in the wiki community is working on our site we cannot see why we should not. Equally anyone is at liberty to amend our information in a fair and honest way, but, in many ways who has the best insight into an institution but the people who study, teach and work there?
Please continue to monitor our changes and suggest ways we can both make it more useful for readers and ensure we do not infringe upon your rules in the future.
Thanks again for your help.(If someone can get rid of the extra bulletpoint that keeps appearing in our bullet lists that would very useful - especially if they can let us know how to do it!)
FryerPaul (
talk)
9:20 20 July 2012 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FryerPaul (
talk •
contribs)
08:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to handle this, so I'm just leaving a note here for editors more experienced in this area. All of the contributions from FredLipman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appear to be sourced to and promoting books by Frederick D. Lipman, so there appears to be a conflict of interest related to this promotion. Deli nk ( talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Obvious troll is obvious. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The wiki foundation has been notified of a civil (and possible) criminal lawsuit against the user Toodst1 for his conduct and his editing of topics which he/she/it has a clear conflict of interest. Wiki has notified my lawfirm that they have informed Toddst1 via email of the formal charges. As such, it is in the best interest that Toddst1 cease editing and acting as an admin until this matter is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.11.87 ( talk) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
An Italian researcher on iodine is a problem in my mind, and I think this is the best place to bring it up. Sebastiano Venturi does work on iodine, and has two bad habits - inserting his own work into various articles (somewhat appropriate articles, but in tenuous ways) and creating multiple accounts. To date I have found the following:
His work seems to be tenuous and speculative; for instance, the following text [26] is based on this source from Bentham Science Publishers, who apparently have a pretty terrible reputation for being a scientific journal equivalent to vanity press pay-to-publish. It's not pubmed indexed and the page itself has numerous adds on it (which might not be terrible, but is suspect). I'm going to alert some other editors who have noted similar stuff in the past and start removing what I consider suspect. Any suggestions or comments would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a difficult case, as Venturi is treading in waters which are speculative both because they make hypotheses about the evolution of biochemistry 500 million years ago (which needless to say, hasn't left us too many fossils-- see evolution of dietary antioxidants), PLUS a foray into an area of biochemistry that isn't well-worked out even today (see iodine in biology. To wit-- what is most of (i.e., more than half) of the iodine in our bodies doing?? (in males, about 1/3 of 14 mg total body iodine is not in the thyroid. [28]; in women, it's more). What is its function? The body carefully hoards and stores it, but not for making thyroxine. Clearly some is being stored by the breast for secretion into milk so babies are not iodine deficient. But men store a lot of iodine outside their thyroid glands also. Perhaps mammals secrete iodine in all of our sweat and salivary glands, just to make sure that women secrete it in milk (soft of like man have nipples but don't use them). I dunno. It is indeed true that only half or less of the body's iodine is in the thyroid, being used to make and store thryoid hormones. We haven't a clue as to what the rest does. There have been persistant suggestions (based on growth of thyrectomized animals when fed iodide) that perhaps other cells in the body can make their own thyroxine. This was never proven in the 60's and people seem to have lost interest. [29]
The "alternative medicine" view of iodine is that (as iodide, and even as elemental iodine) it's a rather ancient reductant which absorbs free radicals, rather like the bromine in fire retardants. If this was iodide's first function in life, it might well make sense that it went on to become a cofactor-like molecule that did what the parent element did, but better (you see that in molybdenum, selenium, t-RNA and a lot of places in biochem). And the selenoenzyme's functions in modulating iodine metabolism might make more sense if one antioxidant system was handing this job off to another, evolutionarily. However, we can't be sure. So far as I can find, Venturi is the only person who has written extensively about it, although all the alternative medicine sources go back to him in their suggestions that healthy people might need more iodine than just what it takes to make thyroid hormones. [30]. In the end, I hate to see Venturi either surpressed or encouraged. He can't be written out entirely, as he has published on non-thyroid functions of iodine in at least one peer-reviewed source The Breast (journal). On that topic, if we won't let him quote himself, I'll be glad to cite him as a review of ideas there. On the other hand, he has few supporters on the evolutionary side (not because anybody thinks he's wrong, but it's just too long ago-- you know, there was a fire in the evolutionary records office), and he hasn't exactly gotten into the major evolution journals and most of his iodine biochem stuff is speculative. But so is all the stuff in WP's articles on Abiogenesis! It may fail WP:MEDMOS as a treatment for breast diseases, but may not fail WP:RS for speculation on evolution, as the standards are lower ;). My behavior in the past is to try to keep this stuff from swamping major articles like iodine, and letting it have a bit more free-reign in Iodine in biology and even more in Evolution of dietary antioxidants. Perhaps some of the last violates WP:MEDMOS, but I"m haunted by the idea that these ideas should at leats be mentioned as hypotheses (where they can be cited), in case they turn out to be "right" (or garner a lot more support in coming years). Iodine might be just the thing for fibrocystic breast disease, even if evolutinarily, it didn't get into thyroxine in any of the ways Venturi thinks it did. These are separate issues. As is WP:SELFCITING. Should we not give WP:SELFCITERS more rope, if nobody else is available who has a better idea? I can't think of any better evolutionary explanation for what iodine is doing in today's organisms, and apparently neither can anybody else. It seems to me that the major harm self-citers do, is in crowding out other people's alternative ideas, in fertile fields. This one isn't a fertile field, so the damage is small. And again, it's not off-the-wall-non-scientific craziness. S B H arris 00:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia,
regarding le article "ANTIOXIDANT: History" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Antioxidant&action=history
I permit to report that in the
=Line 15=:
"As part of their adaptation from marine life, terrestrial plants began producing non-marine antioxidants such as ascorbic acid ( Vitamin C), polyphenols and tocopherols. The evolution of angiosperm plants between 50 and 200 million years ago resulted in the development of many antioxidant pigments – particularly during the Jurassic period – as chemical defences against reactive oxygen species that are byproducts of photosynthesis."
the above sentence is derived from my paper ( Venturi Sebastiano: "Evolutionary significance of iodine" published in Current Chemical Biology: Volume 5, 3 Issues, 2011, and in: "Evolution of dietary antioxidant defences". European Epi-Marker_ Vol. 11, No. 3 :1-12. July 2007
and not in paper of Benzie where only the evolution of antioxidants in human diet is reported.
Thanks
Yours
venturi-sebastiano ( talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Sebastiano venturi venturi-sebastiano ( talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
_____ You can see below my paragraph:
_____ ... When about 400-300 Mya some living plants and animals began to transfer from the sea to rivers and land, environmental iodine deficiency was a challenge to the evolution of terrestrial life (Venturi, 2000). In marine-fishes, plants and animals the terrestrial diet became deficient in many essential marine trace elements, including iodine, selenium etc. Terrestrial plants, in replacement of marine antioxidants, slowly optimized the production of other endogenous antioxidants such as ascorbic acid, polyfenols, carotenoids, flavonoids, tocoferols etc., some of which became essential “vitamins” in the diet of terrestrial animals (vitamins C, A, E, etc.). ... When about 500 million years ago plants and animals began to transfer from the sea to rivers and land, environmental iodine-deficiency was a challenge to the evolution of terrestrial life. New endogenous antioxidants appeared in plants as ascorbic acid, polyfenols, carotenoids, flavonoids. A few of these appeared recently, about 200-50 million years ago in fruits and flowers of angiosperm plants... ____
This article is being heavily edited by an obvious COI editor (see talk: "our editorial board", for example), but I'm really getting tired of this article, so I have removed it from my watchlist. Perhaps somebody else would like to take over. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 17:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
2009/1-2 (n° 193-194), Paris, EHESS.
Zamuse ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have a conflict of interest as I'm involved with a tramway preservation group in Victoria, Australia (I'm a member of the TMSV board), I have declared my COI on my userpage, and have tried to avoid editing the page about the organisation I'm part of, but have edited twice, in good faith, to fix errors (I hope this is ok, and am happy for them to be reviewed by another editor, and reverted if found to be a breach of policy).
My main question relates to my editing of articles about the Melbourne tram system, I have on a number of occasions used our publication (Running Journal) as citations on pages such as Trams in Melbourne, is this acceptable behaviour, or should I not use these articles as sources? For some context, the articles in question were written in the 1960's and 1970's on historical matters, they can be viewed here and here, feedback is greatly appreciated so I can continue working on pages related to Melbourne's trams, I have also posted my COI on the Trams in Melbourne talk page. Liamdavies ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm coming here for some advice. I recently became involved with two other editors in reverting edits on Human Resources and Recruitment which appeared to be aimed at positioning promotional information about an organisation called the Institute of Recruiters(IOR). The edits were undertaken by User talk:78.148.26.156 and User talk:Azmatmohammed both of whom appeared to be solely involved in editing these pages with content relating to the Institute of Recruiters. It was then drawn to my attention by another editor that the user name 'Azmatmohammed' happens to be identical to the name of the Director General as advised on the IOR website [34] and that there might be a conflict of interest issue with the article Institute of Recruiters which was created and has been maintained solely by User talk:Azmatmohammed the anon IP referred to above and another anon editor with a similar IP address. I have recently posted a polite message on User talk:Azmatmohammed with a {{ Uw-coi}} template seeking clarification as to whether there is a connection. In any case the content of this page is largely promotional with no reliable sources cited and would need to be overhauled almost 100% if it were to be retained. There is also a question over the notability of the subject as the importance of the organisation has clearly been puffed up by suggesting it has international or even global status when in fact it appears only to be operational in the UK. I am not in a hurry at this stage to proceed but what is the suggested next step to handle this having allowed a few more days to elapse? Thanks. Tmol42 ( talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Growmore Biotech ( http://www.growmorebiotech.com) is propogating Beema Bamboo. All of the user Growmore's edits involve or promote beema and lack supporting citations. The user name is against WP policy, as this using WP to promote. The user has not acknowledge repeated warnings, though there may be a language barrier. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. E8 ( talk) 19:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
User has asserted ownership over the page and of the trademarked phrase "Intelligent Vehicle Technologies", presumably as owner of the company. The article appears to be about the concept, not the company (not lowercased phrase in article title, general content is 80% about the concept). This has led to ownership of the article and weird discussions on the talk page. Some help sorting it out would be appreciated. tedder ( talk) 01:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This user has a potential COI regarding a legal case. The user has denied the COI, [42] but I still want to submit this to make sure, since COI edits regarding legal cases can have real world consequences. The user's additions are located here. Gold Standard 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.
Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI - a couple of us also put together some improved templates for {{request edits}} to make them easier to review with an AfC-like template process.
This should make it easier to provide a COI with quick feedback, but put the burden on the COI to improve the content, instead of enslaving the volunteer to help them. You can see what the templates look like here. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Bobby Durhams biography is intentionally written to omit historically correct facts pertaining to my involvement in his carrer as part of THE DURHAM BROTHERS duo. I have in good faith made corrections to reflect that the musical credits he clams to have earned as a solo act actually belong to our joined efforts and work as a duo. Musical recordings presented to be solo work such as DO YOU STILL DRINK MARGARITAS and others misrepresented as his solo work. This practice is misleading, inaccurate and unfair not only to the readers but to myself as a recording artist and performer. My respectful edits are consistently taken out and replaced with the same misinformation mentioned above. A gold record is mentioned that never took place, this items bring to question the validity and accuracy of Wikepedia as a reliable medium. What can be done to promote and maintain accuracy in this bio. Respectfully, Wayne Durham THE SIDEMAN -- The Sideman ( Talk) 23:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I added neutral content from news sources and it keeps getting deleted and a references tag added. I think this might be harassment, can someone please help? Panther Pink ( talk) 03:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC) They're erasing news reports again, can an administrator please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC) For the record I saw Roma's TV interview. By the same standard I'm apparently friends with Madonna, Will.i.am and the Kardashians. Can I PLEASE get some help with this? I added news reports and interviews with her. Obviously these editors didn't even read those articles and just dislike Sister Roma. Is that the standard around here? Sabotage any article you don't agree with? A little help please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
These three people are accusing everyone who touches the article as working for Sister Roma, the tags were removed but the deletions and bullying continue. " I contest almost the whole existence of this article as a puff piece by the people involved." Isn't that sweet? Panther Pink ( talk) 05:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Good evening everyone. I see from looking here that, following the COI template, an editor experienced in COI has already given some sensible advice - including the word 'evidence'. Everyone posting to this thread appears to be rehashing previous augments from that one, so I believe it might be sensible for this to stablise on the talk page and not here. Lastly... Panther pink, let me welcome you to Wikipedia, and express my regret that nobody appears to have done so yet. I'm hoping you've survived your baptism of fire and you're happy to keep improving wikipedia, although I suspect you might find it easier to learn your craft in some of the less controversial areas of wiki first and then come back to the article. I'd like to see this thread closed off personally - if someone comes back with a set of diffs and a username then it might be best to start a new thread. How do others feel and closing? Fayedizard ( talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious this editor has a severe hangup on either Sister Roma or someone they assume is working for her. As I said before my extent is that I saw her interview on TV and thought she was fascinating. To the same degree i am working for Madonna, David Beckham and Justin Bieber! This should also be noted as the reason this IS a COI issue in that they accuse everyone who tries to improve the article as being her employees or coworkers, etc. So the improving of the article is prevented solely on the COI accusations of suspicion. Panther Pink ( talk) 05:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a weird one. I am Canadian so I may be wrong. The list may be long if I am not. It wikilinks to many articles but only has 120 employees in the infobox. Notability, RS, COI, spam, merge to The Pew Charitable Trusts etc. I thought I would post here for thoughts as well. Feel free to {not done} {resolve} if you wish.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 10:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Warning Cross posted. I started at help desk and then pump/tech to see if they can database search a few users for the wikilinks.(leave at bottom?)
I warned User:FredLipman that Wikipedia discourages self-promotion,book/link canvassing, etc. In the case, the user claims to be a well-published authority on some topics. Wikipedia:COI#Citing_oneself says this may be appropriate in some circumstances as long as it's not excessive. See talk page discussion here OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Claims to be a fanatic of a person named "Nikki Xhin". The page mentioned above (since PRODed by me due to WP:N/ WP:NONSENSE/ WP:COI) tells the reader to find the person in question and that User:Nikxhinfanatics will write/wrote articles for her. J u n k c o p s ( want to talk?| my log) 07:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of this feud is taking place at The Moons where an edit war is taking place with several meat or sock puppets. Mrrooftop has been blocked but Anna Sbr quickly took their place. Now the listed IPs are reverting my edits and the edits of DMacks. Bengordelier, Jeb123abc, and Lois Moon are WP:SPAs who have been making edits here and there. Ben Gordelier is a band member and "Lois Moon" may or may not be related to the band but their unreferenced edits suggest some personal knowledge of the band.
I'm usually able to handle these situations myself but this crew is particularly persistent and I don't like dancing around WP:3RR.
This is the edit that's getting tossed back and forth right now. It's, "Full of uncited opinions, motivations, and fawning praise." and they've ignored all attempts at discussion. I'm not as concerned about that as I am the rest of the content of the article and all of the article for bands signed to Schnitzel Records Ltd. and all of the numerous files uploaded about The Moons, Schnitzel Records Ltd., and the bands it has signed. I've only turned over a few rocks but this appears to be a very widespread issue. OlYeller21 Talktome 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This editor is pretty obviously the same ESPRIS video game developer suggested by his name, which he is attempting to insert into List of video game developers. MirMahna is the name of his game. Msnicki ( talk) 20:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
While I think the edits have been made in
good faith (the editor has not set out to vandalise), I suspect the following account was established by an author for the purposes of promoting a series of books. The name of the author and the username are the same (Lee Fodi) and every edit so far (5 in total, 3 substantive) has been to include details of that author's book series in various articles. I suspect it's a matter of not knowing the rules rather than purposefully breaking them.
Stalwart111
(talk)
23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Issue has been reported here several times ( [56] [57]). To sum up the issue, a person using accounts that appear to be the subject of the article keep changing the date of birth listed in the article [58] which is currently backed up by reliable sources. I've attempted to start a discussion with the editor several times on their talk page but they continue to cite themselves in their edit summaries, claiming to be the subject of the article. They've passed an L4 warning. I don't see any other way to address this than with a block. Any admins around that can assist? OlYeller21 Talktome 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Any suggestions on what to do with the user (presumably the subject of the article)? Their intent seems to be to list the date that they feel is or know to be correct. I'm not suggesting that we go with their self-citation but I'm not sure they're going to be happy with that solution. I'd suggest we discuss it with them at this point but they've avoided all attempts to discuss. Perhaps it would be best to remove the date, see if they attempt to change it again, then block if they do? OlYeller21 Talktome 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This editor, with a COI username, has added massive amounts of copy/paste material to the article. I stumbled upon an incipient edit war just now and reverted everything since it all came straight from the school's website. I put some of the urls in my edit summaries before I realized that the whole article was copied and just rolled it back. I will notify the other editors involved now. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Greg Quinn has been created and lightly amended over several years by User:Currantman. The article is quite laudatory of Quinn and contained multiple links to his commercial currant growing concerns, I wonder if it is mr Quinn himself? There are few sources. I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done, could the experts here offer some advice? rgds 94.195.187.69 ( talk) 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Editor User:Naturalistic has identified himself as author Paul Harrison (pantheist). He wrote the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books). Some editors (perhaps including himself?) have mentioned that book (and its sales website http://www.pantheism.net ) in two articles: Pantheism and Naturalistic pantheism. This led to a Dispute resolution case at WP:DRN. It would be great if some COI experts could provide some insight at that DRN discussion page. Thanks. Noleander ( talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
User appears not to be currently active, but is the creator of the three articles listed - all of which were originally blatant advertisements for Kluger, who was the subject of this controversy wikinews:Accidental email brings product placement agency under fire for attempting to solicit product placement of Double Happiness Jeans in a Pussycat Dolls song's lyrics. I'd tagged Adam Kluger for proposed deletion, but now see that this page (created 4 may 2009) is a re-creation of a previously-deleted article in December 2008 per User talk:Keywordrenewals#Notability of Adam Kluger. I've reinstated any mention of the controversy at Product placement#Music and recording industries and The Kluger Agency (these were being replaced with Kluger self-promotion, although I haven't reviewed the full history to see if there are other WP:COI accounts behind these edits) but it may be worth keeping an eye on the affected pages (if they're salvageable) or speedying them (if they're advertising). 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The user, User:Johnjaymyers, is a candidate for United States Senate in Texas, under the Libertarian Party. He is attempting to promote his candidacy by adding himself to the main infobox of the article United States Senate election in Texas, 2012, which is traditionally only allowed if the third party candidate is polling higher than 5%. This is evidenced by this edit, and his only edits appear to be in promotion of his own candidacy. Please address this obvious conflict of interest. Thank you. Gage ( talk) 21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Today we posted a picture and information for John Jay Myers who is running for United States Senate in Texas. This picture was removed from the top right corner, which gives the impression to the average voter that there are only two candidates in this race. What purpose does it serve to do this? This is an encyclopedia site, that should present fair and balanced information, obviously we can no longer get that from major media outlets, but the people should be able to come here, see accurate non bias information and make their decisions.
The fact that I (John Jay Myers) added the information makes no difference, because there is nothing untrue in the article and nothing is a matter of opinion.
I am one of three people on the General Election ballot, and I deserve to be displayed fairly. How would anyone suggest anyone Poll higher... considering their name has never been listed on a poll, and you can't even get your information listed correctly on what is supposed to be an non bias media like wikipedia?
This is not an effort to promote my candidacy it is an effort to put up relevant information on a wikipedia page in the same manner as has been put up by/for the other candidates.
Johnjaymyers ( talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
We've not had any response from Gage - does anyone else know where we might find a policy for this 5% figure? Fayedizard ( talk) 06:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing conflict in social conservatism over an apparent academic/psycho-political trope of painting conservatives as "authoritarians". Our article on the primary thesis is right-wing authoritarianism and it does have a criticism section, which however is dismissive of contrary views. The more-or-less current form of that section was added in this edit by User:Jcbutler, who left about a year ago. J. Corey Butler is in fact a social psychology researcher. The problem perhaps is that he publishes on this particular topic; for example, I was quickly led to this paper. Therefore, in dismissing critical responses, he is defending his own research. I appreciate that credentials matter, but this seems to me to be crossing a line. Mangoe ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be promotional material masquerading as a series of articles with some suspicious removal of material and amendments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 20 (UTC)
The user's edits appear to be almost entirely BLP articles (with the exception of Livemusic, a company), and primarily consist of positive POV articles created and edited by said user. Unfortunately, the seemingly SPA nature of the account leads me to suspect that this may be a case of paid editing. Zaldax ( talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Cash Cash's management team has found this article. They've been bombing it with promotional material and selective rewriting of the musical group's own history. Attempts to initiate discussion with the IP failed, but they've registered an obvious COI account and continued. Chubbles ( talk) 06:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I initially saw Mitzvah to kohanim to sound silver trumpets and started trying to improve the article adding copy and refs (which I have now removed), and initiating a RM to a WP:COMMONNAME, but then a duplicate of the article on a private website http://kehuna.org/silver-trumpets/ with accompanying advert appeared: http://kehuna.org/trumpet-order-page/ "The price of the trumpet is 1,750.00$ (subject to change), and requires 2 weeks for delivery (US orders)." etc. ...
User MJDS has made a few edits now to Dominatrix page promoting her own services as a professional dominatrix, which I have reverted. She is also now using her own user space as an advert, and I fear may resume editing in article space. IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 11:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I discovered this article (as I often find potential COI issues) at the copyright problems board. The copyright issues I detected have been removed and revdeleted, but I noticed what looks like an awful lot of puffery (one issue corrected; one noted at the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imagini). I'm trying to knock out some of the nearly 40 day backlog at CP and don't have time to look. I know that no one here may want to take this up, but just in case I thought I'd drop it off. :) It could use an experienced eye! -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Gil Lopes is the principle of www.showbras.com.br. He is claiming (quite likely correctly) that João Gilberto has been under showbras's representation (or something like that) for a quarter century. While this may be true, Mr. Lopes hasn't provided any WP:RS about this, and I'm having trouble getting him to understand why we need more that just his say-so along with pages on his website. Could I have a hand with this please? -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 20:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll say more about what is happening. For 25 years my company Showbras, cared for the management of the artist Joao Gilberto. This is public knowledge, we were quoted by major newspapers, trade worldwide and signed all the albums recorded by the artist during this period, as producer or executive producer. In the data sheet of the disks is referred to management. In addition to posters of important presentations are published on the company website. The site of the artist, the artist's most complete site with bio, photos and press material, including major newspapers published the world's environment is Showbras, for obvious reasons. I presume that before all this would be natural that the information in the Encyclopedia of the artist could use as a reference we have. I could not take pictures and publish contracts on Wikipedia, I can do is bring the information to cite a source here and the site of the artist, the most complete site, repeat. I do not suppose there is a conflict of interest in being myself the owner of Showbras simply because Showbras is a company with more than 30 years and several important Brazilian artists in its cast as it is easy to check the website of ShowBras. What I present is the reference site of Joao Gilberto, not the site of Showbras.
Anyway, until this is understood, I did not tell the Showbras or me in the article. -- Gil Lopes ( talk) 02:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Then how do I do? I have to sell Showbras that my contributions are allowed on Joao Gilberto? Should I ask someone I know to go on Wikipedia and write the truth? My testimony to the Wikipedia is censored by the fact that I have participated in the story? My company is perceived as being my own person and therefore can not be cited as actually accomplished? I think the rules are being read and interpreted the wrong way . And please, i would like you consider your own rules: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article". That is it! We are talking about exactly these, so...-- Gil Lopes ( talk) 15:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear sir, thank you for your interest in the subject, I did more than I should, I occupied my time on improving the information in Wikipedia in Portuguese and in English, the result is a big hassle. First the disrespectful treatment that Wikipedia has me down, the violent way in which it cuts and especially the insistence on ignoring the issue and treat it in a way so vile. We're simply talking about the greatest Brazilian artist. I too have to prove what is in the public domain, I think too much fiddling with pages created in the environment ShowBras, think over what they are asking me. I have fulfilled all the requirements when I spoke in cnflito tried to join a series of citations, doubted unjustly, unfairly cut. I'll put an end, do what you want, do not go Criative Commons, I do not agree with it, I realize that this is actually an option from the Wikipedia. Manifest myself in other forums on the subject. But thank you very much.-- 189.60.189.35 ( talk) 01:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This IP address has inserted external references to an ebook guide published by convicted criminal Perry Belcher and has deleted the record of Belchers conviction for a laundry list of health-related fraud from the entry on Belchers criminal enterprise [ [1]] - as noted on the talk page [ page] there is a sustained pattern of deletions to hide Belchers criminal past and current, ongoing probation for Internet-related fraud and there also appears to be a general pattern of inserting links to external commercial sites owned or controlled by Belcher from several IP adresses going back to 2008 when Perry Belcher was editing the Wiki articles on himself 80.202.234.120 ( talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Today a new editor, who says that she is the article's subject, has arrived. First she made a total overhaul to a version that was very much like a personal web page. When that was reverted she blanked the page a couple of times. I semi-protected for a week to bring a halt to this without needing to actually block her. She has since expressed on her talk page a desire to clean up the page about herself.
I wrote a fairly long personal welcome, hopefully explaining a bit the situation. I'm hoping that she comes back with a willingness to work with Wikipedia, instead of working against us. To this end, assuming that she is willing to take things slower, could I get a person or two willing to assist her in improving the article within Wikipedia's needs? - TexasAndroid ( talk) 19:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The IP editing claims to be (on the talk page) a VP of this company correcting "inaccuracies". His edits were unsourced and he removed sourced information, so I have been reverting him. However, I don't really know anything about this matter and now he has posted some sources on the talk page. Some of his changes may therefore actually be justified, but I don't feel competent to judge for myself. I had previous posted a note on the talkpage of the Film WikiProject, but have gotten no response. Perhaps someone here can have a look at this situation. Thanks. Guillaume2303 ( talk) 09:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Name suggests account has COI. Only edits besides those to Mike Turzai (the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House) are to Jim Christiana (another Republican Pennsylvania House member). Three edits to Mike Turzai [6] [7] [8] sought to remove a reliable source describing the remarks and add an ex post facto unsourced explanation to Turzai's remarks on Voter ID. In fact, Turzai's remarks have been described as a "smoking gun" in several sources (see [9], [10]). Additionally, it might be worth taking a look at whether this account is in violation of WP:ROLE. Because I don't know who is editing with the account, I can't say for sure whether this is an impermissible shared account. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
User has declared their connection to the company that is the subject of the article. User was warned in April about the COI guidelines, but continues their pattern of removing anything resembling criticism in the article and rewritting it to resemble an advert. WegianWarrior ( talk) 06:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Editor stated in a now deleted edit ( here's a copy), "I am the creator of the deleted article and Senior Writer for IAPMO, the organization that publishes the Uniform Solar Energy Code. All information in the Wikipedia entry is accurate." That was in response to an article I marked for G12 deletion (a copyvio).
The understandable lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines has most likely popped up in the rest of their edits and I need help sifting through the edits, created articles, and uploaded files. There's only 76 in total (not included the deleted ones) so it should be too bad. I'm rather busy at work today and won't have time to go through them all right now. OlYeller21 Talktome 17:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've got a user Sk8terguy27 who's created and edited Tom Rice ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) primarily, if not solely, for promotional purposes. The article has been tagged CSD G11, and I think the user needs to be blocked. Can someone take action on this user and article? DRAGON 280 ( TALK/ CONTRIBS) 04:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The situation isn't incredibly problematic, but is worth keeping an eye on in terms of balance and bias. An external link was added by an anonymous user, with a glowing edit summary about its author. The JPS talk to me 17:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Nathana has created a draft submission (submitted while I was typing) at AfC of an article that they obviously have a connection with per their username. Based on the evidence, it appears that this user is a representative of this musician or might be the musician himself. On to the article itself: it's not a blatant violations of policies, however it has no references and doesn't really appear to be written following the manual of style (I know that none of these are extremely bad issues, I though I would just summarize the condition of the sub). I'd like to know what action to take on the now-on-hold submission. Thanks,
Nathan2055
talk -
contribs
16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is being closed by Orange Mike, an uninvolved admin.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that
User:Abhayakara has a conflict of interest, albeit a non-fiduciary one. On the other hand, it is impossible to miss that both
Abhayakara and
Vritti have much more serious problems with maintaining a
neutral point of view in this
biography of a living person; and it seems to me that
Uzma Gamal has almost as strong a problem with NPOV. I am closing this with the advice that both Abhayakara and Vritti cease editing this article directly, bringing any proposed edits to the talk page of the article, and if necessary to the BLP noticeboard; and a very strong request that Uzma do the same. (Vritti, I'd also suggest you look at
our rules about original research and synthesis: what seems to you the only clear interpretation of your sacred texts and traditions, may seem less clearcut to another person.) --
Orange Mike |
Talk
This editor acknowledges COI with respect to this article as a devotee of Michael Roach -- see e.g. his user page. The difficulty however is that acknowledging the COI has not led to any restraint on his part in editing the article, sometimes aggressively. That's one element of the behavioral aspect of things that I'd like assistance with; another is his habit of describing me as "not neutral" (because I don't agree with the way he wants to edit the article) -- examples here. FTR, I do not have a COi w/rt Roach -- I had never heard of him before the article was brought up on BLPN a couple of months ago. Given the mode in which this article is being edited, one would think that the COI guideline doesn't exist at all. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 06:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: X2. This is the same crap carried on from the article and talk page. All of these editors should drop it and let those that are not COI look at the article and fix it.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 11:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Uzma Gamal suggests, quite sensibly, that what this thread needs is additional views about whether Abhayakara has a COI on this article. I think it's obvious that he does, not least because he recognizes himself that he does, as here where he notes that he is the IT director for Roach's Diamond Mountain Center and identifies Roach as his "main teacher", having known him for more than a decade. I'd be grateful if other editors (regulars here, especially) can offer their views. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been a week since this accusation was raised. User:Nomoskedasticity continues to use my alleged COI as an excuse not to engage in constructive debate about what should appear on the Michael Roach article, and as a result the article contains a clearly libelous implication. I have assiduously followed the guidelines here. I have been careful not to remove viewpoints from the article that are supported by references. I have asked for and gotten review of the article on WP:BLPN, WP:3 and somewhat tangentially here on WP:COIN. All of this review has come out against User:Nomoskedasticity's POV. Yet he still persists in editing as if he is neutral and I am editing with POV, because of this COI accusation. If you really think that I am editing with COI, say so, and I'll go away. If not, please put this dog to bed. Abhayakara ( talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
A contributor perhaps associated with Life Time Fitness has been contributing mightily but the long lists of all the locations looks like advertising.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a Conflict of Interest case with respect to Famousdog, and his edits on the God helmet" page. I have tried to resolve conflicts with this user before, and have even raised a Conflict of Interest on the relevant talk page, as indicated on the wiki page giving guidelines for handling these issues.
This content was removed on the grounds that it could "out" Famousdog’s personal identity. I assure you that this was not malicious, but simply a mistake. I have read that in order for a Conflict of Interest to be filed, one has to demonstrate that the user has such an interest. I have ample evidence to demonstrate Famousdog’s conflicting interest, but posting it openly would violate Famousdog's privacy - and the Wikipedia rules. One exception is a talk page where Famousdog openly states the belief that Dr. Persinger, the inventor of the God Helmet: "... is a misguided and a poor scientist" Here is the link to that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun&oldid=47806805
On that page, Famousdog states their position, and they have been editing to keep the God Helmet page in agreement with his perspective since November of 2010.
I am not interested in "outing" anyone, especially if there is a chance that their professional reputation is compromised. I prefer to handle these situations through co-operation. However, Famousdog has consistently negated any such attempt, even leaving misleading information in place after a correct quotation was shown. One of Famousdog's edits said that a commercial device was tested for God Helmet effects, when it was actually tested to see if it changed emotional responses to graphic images, a study that has never been done with the God Helmet, nor have any such effects ever been claimed for it. This appears to be a piece of data fakery, from the library instead of the lab, though both kinds are equally unethical.
A quick inspection of the history of the page, including the relevant Talk Page, should make Famousdog’s hostility towards the God Helmet obvious, and raise a suspicion of a conflict of interest in any unbiased editor. Famousdog consistently uses judgmental terms which bias the content negatively, such as the word 'claimed', which is specifically noted as a word to avoid on the POV page. Presumably, this is done to further their POV. My every attempt at making the page less biased has met with quick reversion of the content. I prefer to avoid an edit war, but it seems impossible without allowing Famousdog’s perspective to dominate, and Famousdog’s irrelevant and sometimes distorted information to remain in place. Both options seem equally inappropriate.
In addition, Famousdog has little knowledge of the technology discussed in the page. Famousdog consistently adds information that is incorrect or simply not relevant. In addition, any information that corrects Famousdog's interpretations are removed, in one case because Famousdog thought the editorial team of the source (a reputable journal) to be a "quack company". Famousdog appears to avail himself of any excuse to revert changes they doesn't agree with.
Any subject which has been the subject of an academic debate (such as this) should have both sides considered equally. However, when the content of the page is predicated on the belief that the God Helmet inventor's work is 'poor' and 'misguided' science, there is clearly a conflict of interest and individuals who rely upon Wikipedia as a reference are seriously misinformed. Because of Famousdog’s limited knowledge on the subject matter, Famousdog's efforts, even if they are well-intentioned, do exactly that. Famousdog’s low opinion of the God Helmet experiements, together with their dominance of the page through these long efforts (93 edits over 21 months, at last count) make the page more than a little biased. I have not added the Biased tag, because the last time it was in place for this page, Famousdog replaced it the same day one editor removed it.
I would also like to add that this same editor has also edited the pages for neurotheology and the page for Dr. Persinger, also introducing bias into them.
I have asked for third-party comments on the Talk Page, but I have not received any. Therefore I request that an administrator review the page and consider Famousdog's activity. My hope is that they will be able to end the consistent hostility the page shows towards it's subject, and help return the page to an unbiased position. Finally, I would like to know, as I said above, how I present evidence of a Conflict of Interest involving personal information about an editor without violating the Wiki rules. For the record, this is a conflict of interest action. Thank you. Ksirok ( talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been a very active Wikipedia editor lately and I came to this page because of my interest in the subject. It looks like Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia rules. It does look like he has a strong bias. His edits do make the page biased. That kind of editing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. After reading what others have said here, I agree that you should carry on providing facts and references about the God Helmet. The negative information all derives from the study in Sweden, news reports about it and a review article by Aaen-Stockdale. It seems that the Aaen-stockdale article has a misquote about a study of responses to photos(I looked it up). Because of this, the Aaen-Stockdale article isn't really a reliable source. It may be published in a worthwhile magazine, but the Aaen-Stockdale article obviously has one or more mistakes in it. The God Helmet page should have the mistaken quote from Aaen-Stockdale removed and the quote from Gendle and McGrath used instead. Just because Aaen-Stodale got it wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to also. In fact, replacing a mistaken quotation with an accurate one would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia no matter what page we're talking about. Improving Wikipedia is everyone's goal, and accuracy is the first order of business. If a source has a mistake, it shouldn't be used. Famousdog's reverts (or is it edit warring?) of the corrected quotation show a strong bias. You should continue editing to keep the page accurate. However, bias is not the same thing as conflict of interest, although I can see how they might look the same in this case. If Famousdog persists, you might consider mediation, as that appears to be the recommended process for Wikipedia. Do carry on if you are sure of your facts, but this is probably not a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia rules. I think you should add the biased and/or NPOV tag (but NOT the COI tag) to the page, as it is biased editing. If I have time, I may do a little editing of this or related pages myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.181.216 ( talk) 03:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe the user LisaThorne has a conflict of interest with respect to their editing of the article Ivan Massow. LisaThorne may also edit from the IP 81.137.239.209, who on 19th July systematically removed several edits by Welsh-marches. The material which was removed included information from reliable sources that could be said to be not flattering to the article's subject, for example here. I reverted these removals, then shortly afterwards LisaThorne removed great chunks of sourced information here. Again, all the material that was removed could be said to be not flattering to the article's subject. I reverted, LisaThorne reverted back. I reverted again (3rd time), this time leaving not only an explicit edit summary (again) but also advice and a warning on LisaThorne's talk page. This has been ignored and I was reverted again. Not only does LisaThorne systematically remove from the article any information that could be said to be not flattering to the article's subject (regardless of whether or not it comes from a reliable source), they also add information which presents the opposite (positive) view, such as here, and add links direct to the article subject's own business webpages, such as here and here. Additionally, LisaThorne's talk page has several notices informing them of speedy deletion proposals relating to articles which are all the names of Ivan Massow's businesses. LisaThorne has also displayed similar editing further back in the Ivan Massow article's history, specifically on the 3rd and 4th of September 2011, where the pattern of reverting edits by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is similar to the recent activity. I shall inform LisaThorne that I have started this thread. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sicap is a probably not notable technology company (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sicap). All or most edits by Katestoney seem to have the purpose of promoting this company throughout Wikipedia by means of external or internal links (e.g., [24], to take one edit at random), and most of these changes appear highly questionable in view of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV, among other relevant policies. I am considering rolling back these edits and blocking the account. What do others think? Sandstein 09:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed some recent edits to the article University of Bedfordshire by a new user, Webteambeds ( talk · contribs). Mostly the edits look valuable, constructive and informative, but I did notice the user has "updated" the reputation section, with some older critical material now removed. So I thought it might be worth an experienced WP:COI specialist just having a quick look, and perhaps gently introducing the new user to our COI policy. Jheald ( talk) 10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out your concerns. We would like to clarify that it is the University of Bedfordshire that is updating this page and we are happy that this is known. Our original login was to enable any of our webteam to do the work but on the suggestion of Fayedizard ( talk)have changed this to more clearly identify who is doing it, something many others don’t do.
We have been overhauling and adding to the information about the University ourselves because no one else appears to be doing it. It has not been overhauled recently and so contained broken links and out-of-date information which had little relevance to the current institution, although was possibly of historic interest.
Before making changes we looked at many other University entries and have adapted the format and structure they use and have drafted similar content, so that readers have as full a picture of Bedfordshire as they do of others. Please see these:
We can understand the concerns that you have about these changes, but as Wikipedia is an open-access format you are able to change anything that you feel might not be suitable – however I’d ask you to look at the University sites above and compare our content with them, so that we are not represented differently from these. We do not see this as a conflict of interest as much of the information we have used is readily available and could easily have been drawn upon by someone who wanted to overhaul and update our site for us. Unfortunately no one has.
I think we would consider including the information that we now offer the opportunity for people to study for part-time degrees in the evenings at our campuses to be a fact rather than an opinion so we’d like to keep that in please.
We also understand your concerns about information critical of the University which has been removed – we will reinstate this today. However as it relates to Luton University, a former incarnation of this institution, and events eight years ago we feel that while these are a matter of historical record they have little contemporary relevance and give an out-of-date impression of the University of Bedfordshire as it is today.
Hopefully you understand where we are coming from here, if no one in the wiki community is working on our site we cannot see why we should not. Equally anyone is at liberty to amend our information in a fair and honest way, but, in many ways who has the best insight into an institution but the people who study, teach and work there?
Please continue to monitor our changes and suggest ways we can both make it more useful for readers and ensure we do not infringe upon your rules in the future.
Thanks again for your help.(If someone can get rid of the extra bulletpoint that keeps appearing in our bullet lists that would very useful - especially if they can let us know how to do it!)
FryerPaul (
talk)
9:20 20 July 2012 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FryerPaul (
talk •
contribs)
08:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to handle this, so I'm just leaving a note here for editors more experienced in this area. All of the contributions from FredLipman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appear to be sourced to and promoting books by Frederick D. Lipman, so there appears to be a conflict of interest related to this promotion. Deli nk ( talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Obvious troll is obvious. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The wiki foundation has been notified of a civil (and possible) criminal lawsuit against the user Toodst1 for his conduct and his editing of topics which he/she/it has a clear conflict of interest. Wiki has notified my lawfirm that they have informed Toddst1 via email of the formal charges. As such, it is in the best interest that Toddst1 cease editing and acting as an admin until this matter is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.11.87 ( talk) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
An Italian researcher on iodine is a problem in my mind, and I think this is the best place to bring it up. Sebastiano Venturi does work on iodine, and has two bad habits - inserting his own work into various articles (somewhat appropriate articles, but in tenuous ways) and creating multiple accounts. To date I have found the following:
His work seems to be tenuous and speculative; for instance, the following text [26] is based on this source from Bentham Science Publishers, who apparently have a pretty terrible reputation for being a scientific journal equivalent to vanity press pay-to-publish. It's not pubmed indexed and the page itself has numerous adds on it (which might not be terrible, but is suspect). I'm going to alert some other editors who have noted similar stuff in the past and start removing what I consider suspect. Any suggestions or comments would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a difficult case, as Venturi is treading in waters which are speculative both because they make hypotheses about the evolution of biochemistry 500 million years ago (which needless to say, hasn't left us too many fossils-- see evolution of dietary antioxidants), PLUS a foray into an area of biochemistry that isn't well-worked out even today (see iodine in biology. To wit-- what is most of (i.e., more than half) of the iodine in our bodies doing?? (in males, about 1/3 of 14 mg total body iodine is not in the thyroid. [28]; in women, it's more). What is its function? The body carefully hoards and stores it, but not for making thyroxine. Clearly some is being stored by the breast for secretion into milk so babies are not iodine deficient. But men store a lot of iodine outside their thyroid glands also. Perhaps mammals secrete iodine in all of our sweat and salivary glands, just to make sure that women secrete it in milk (soft of like man have nipples but don't use them). I dunno. It is indeed true that only half or less of the body's iodine is in the thyroid, being used to make and store thryoid hormones. We haven't a clue as to what the rest does. There have been persistant suggestions (based on growth of thyrectomized animals when fed iodide) that perhaps other cells in the body can make their own thyroxine. This was never proven in the 60's and people seem to have lost interest. [29]
The "alternative medicine" view of iodine is that (as iodide, and even as elemental iodine) it's a rather ancient reductant which absorbs free radicals, rather like the bromine in fire retardants. If this was iodide's first function in life, it might well make sense that it went on to become a cofactor-like molecule that did what the parent element did, but better (you see that in molybdenum, selenium, t-RNA and a lot of places in biochem). And the selenoenzyme's functions in modulating iodine metabolism might make more sense if one antioxidant system was handing this job off to another, evolutionarily. However, we can't be sure. So far as I can find, Venturi is the only person who has written extensively about it, although all the alternative medicine sources go back to him in their suggestions that healthy people might need more iodine than just what it takes to make thyroid hormones. [30]. In the end, I hate to see Venturi either surpressed or encouraged. He can't be written out entirely, as he has published on non-thyroid functions of iodine in at least one peer-reviewed source The Breast (journal). On that topic, if we won't let him quote himself, I'll be glad to cite him as a review of ideas there. On the other hand, he has few supporters on the evolutionary side (not because anybody thinks he's wrong, but it's just too long ago-- you know, there was a fire in the evolutionary records office), and he hasn't exactly gotten into the major evolution journals and most of his iodine biochem stuff is speculative. But so is all the stuff in WP's articles on Abiogenesis! It may fail WP:MEDMOS as a treatment for breast diseases, but may not fail WP:RS for speculation on evolution, as the standards are lower ;). My behavior in the past is to try to keep this stuff from swamping major articles like iodine, and letting it have a bit more free-reign in Iodine in biology and even more in Evolution of dietary antioxidants. Perhaps some of the last violates WP:MEDMOS, but I"m haunted by the idea that these ideas should at leats be mentioned as hypotheses (where they can be cited), in case they turn out to be "right" (or garner a lot more support in coming years). Iodine might be just the thing for fibrocystic breast disease, even if evolutinarily, it didn't get into thyroxine in any of the ways Venturi thinks it did. These are separate issues. As is WP:SELFCITING. Should we not give WP:SELFCITERS more rope, if nobody else is available who has a better idea? I can't think of any better evolutionary explanation for what iodine is doing in today's organisms, and apparently neither can anybody else. It seems to me that the major harm self-citers do, is in crowding out other people's alternative ideas, in fertile fields. This one isn't a fertile field, so the damage is small. And again, it's not off-the-wall-non-scientific craziness. S B H arris 00:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia,
regarding le article "ANTIOXIDANT: History" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Antioxidant&action=history
I permit to report that in the
=Line 15=:
"As part of their adaptation from marine life, terrestrial plants began producing non-marine antioxidants such as ascorbic acid ( Vitamin C), polyphenols and tocopherols. The evolution of angiosperm plants between 50 and 200 million years ago resulted in the development of many antioxidant pigments – particularly during the Jurassic period – as chemical defences against reactive oxygen species that are byproducts of photosynthesis."
the above sentence is derived from my paper ( Venturi Sebastiano: "Evolutionary significance of iodine" published in Current Chemical Biology: Volume 5, 3 Issues, 2011, and in: "Evolution of dietary antioxidant defences". European Epi-Marker_ Vol. 11, No. 3 :1-12. July 2007
and not in paper of Benzie where only the evolution of antioxidants in human diet is reported.
Thanks
Yours
venturi-sebastiano ( talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Sebastiano venturi venturi-sebastiano ( talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
_____ You can see below my paragraph:
_____ ... When about 400-300 Mya some living plants and animals began to transfer from the sea to rivers and land, environmental iodine deficiency was a challenge to the evolution of terrestrial life (Venturi, 2000). In marine-fishes, plants and animals the terrestrial diet became deficient in many essential marine trace elements, including iodine, selenium etc. Terrestrial plants, in replacement of marine antioxidants, slowly optimized the production of other endogenous antioxidants such as ascorbic acid, polyfenols, carotenoids, flavonoids, tocoferols etc., some of which became essential “vitamins” in the diet of terrestrial animals (vitamins C, A, E, etc.). ... When about 500 million years ago plants and animals began to transfer from the sea to rivers and land, environmental iodine-deficiency was a challenge to the evolution of terrestrial life. New endogenous antioxidants appeared in plants as ascorbic acid, polyfenols, carotenoids, flavonoids. A few of these appeared recently, about 200-50 million years ago in fruits and flowers of angiosperm plants... ____
This article is being heavily edited by an obvious COI editor (see talk: "our editorial board", for example), but I'm really getting tired of this article, so I have removed it from my watchlist. Perhaps somebody else would like to take over. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 17:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
2009/1-2 (n° 193-194), Paris, EHESS.
Zamuse ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have a conflict of interest as I'm involved with a tramway preservation group in Victoria, Australia (I'm a member of the TMSV board), I have declared my COI on my userpage, and have tried to avoid editing the page about the organisation I'm part of, but have edited twice, in good faith, to fix errors (I hope this is ok, and am happy for them to be reviewed by another editor, and reverted if found to be a breach of policy).
My main question relates to my editing of articles about the Melbourne tram system, I have on a number of occasions used our publication (Running Journal) as citations on pages such as Trams in Melbourne, is this acceptable behaviour, or should I not use these articles as sources? For some context, the articles in question were written in the 1960's and 1970's on historical matters, they can be viewed here and here, feedback is greatly appreciated so I can continue working on pages related to Melbourne's trams, I have also posted my COI on the Trams in Melbourne talk page. Liamdavies ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm coming here for some advice. I recently became involved with two other editors in reverting edits on Human Resources and Recruitment which appeared to be aimed at positioning promotional information about an organisation called the Institute of Recruiters(IOR). The edits were undertaken by User talk:78.148.26.156 and User talk:Azmatmohammed both of whom appeared to be solely involved in editing these pages with content relating to the Institute of Recruiters. It was then drawn to my attention by another editor that the user name 'Azmatmohammed' happens to be identical to the name of the Director General as advised on the IOR website [34] and that there might be a conflict of interest issue with the article Institute of Recruiters which was created and has been maintained solely by User talk:Azmatmohammed the anon IP referred to above and another anon editor with a similar IP address. I have recently posted a polite message on User talk:Azmatmohammed with a {{ Uw-coi}} template seeking clarification as to whether there is a connection. In any case the content of this page is largely promotional with no reliable sources cited and would need to be overhauled almost 100% if it were to be retained. There is also a question over the notability of the subject as the importance of the organisation has clearly been puffed up by suggesting it has international or even global status when in fact it appears only to be operational in the UK. I am not in a hurry at this stage to proceed but what is the suggested next step to handle this having allowed a few more days to elapse? Thanks. Tmol42 ( talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Growmore Biotech ( http://www.growmorebiotech.com) is propogating Beema Bamboo. All of the user Growmore's edits involve or promote beema and lack supporting citations. The user name is against WP policy, as this using WP to promote. The user has not acknowledge repeated warnings, though there may be a language barrier. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. E8 ( talk) 19:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
User has asserted ownership over the page and of the trademarked phrase "Intelligent Vehicle Technologies", presumably as owner of the company. The article appears to be about the concept, not the company (not lowercased phrase in article title, general content is 80% about the concept). This has led to ownership of the article and weird discussions on the talk page. Some help sorting it out would be appreciated. tedder ( talk) 01:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This user has a potential COI regarding a legal case. The user has denied the COI, [42] but I still want to submit this to make sure, since COI edits regarding legal cases can have real world consequences. The user's additions are located here. Gold Standard 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.
Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI - a couple of us also put together some improved templates for {{request edits}} to make them easier to review with an AfC-like template process.
This should make it easier to provide a COI with quick feedback, but put the burden on the COI to improve the content, instead of enslaving the volunteer to help them. You can see what the templates look like here. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Bobby Durhams biography is intentionally written to omit historically correct facts pertaining to my involvement in his carrer as part of THE DURHAM BROTHERS duo. I have in good faith made corrections to reflect that the musical credits he clams to have earned as a solo act actually belong to our joined efforts and work as a duo. Musical recordings presented to be solo work such as DO YOU STILL DRINK MARGARITAS and others misrepresented as his solo work. This practice is misleading, inaccurate and unfair not only to the readers but to myself as a recording artist and performer. My respectful edits are consistently taken out and replaced with the same misinformation mentioned above. A gold record is mentioned that never took place, this items bring to question the validity and accuracy of Wikepedia as a reliable medium. What can be done to promote and maintain accuracy in this bio. Respectfully, Wayne Durham THE SIDEMAN -- The Sideman ( Talk) 23:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I added neutral content from news sources and it keeps getting deleted and a references tag added. I think this might be harassment, can someone please help? Panther Pink ( talk) 03:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC) They're erasing news reports again, can an administrator please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC) For the record I saw Roma's TV interview. By the same standard I'm apparently friends with Madonna, Will.i.am and the Kardashians. Can I PLEASE get some help with this? I added news reports and interviews with her. Obviously these editors didn't even read those articles and just dislike Sister Roma. Is that the standard around here? Sabotage any article you don't agree with? A little help please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
These three people are accusing everyone who touches the article as working for Sister Roma, the tags were removed but the deletions and bullying continue. " I contest almost the whole existence of this article as a puff piece by the people involved." Isn't that sweet? Panther Pink ( talk) 05:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Good evening everyone. I see from looking here that, following the COI template, an editor experienced in COI has already given some sensible advice - including the word 'evidence'. Everyone posting to this thread appears to be rehashing previous augments from that one, so I believe it might be sensible for this to stablise on the talk page and not here. Lastly... Panther pink, let me welcome you to Wikipedia, and express my regret that nobody appears to have done so yet. I'm hoping you've survived your baptism of fire and you're happy to keep improving wikipedia, although I suspect you might find it easier to learn your craft in some of the less controversial areas of wiki first and then come back to the article. I'd like to see this thread closed off personally - if someone comes back with a set of diffs and a username then it might be best to start a new thread. How do others feel and closing? Fayedizard ( talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious this editor has a severe hangup on either Sister Roma or someone they assume is working for her. As I said before my extent is that I saw her interview on TV and thought she was fascinating. To the same degree i am working for Madonna, David Beckham and Justin Bieber! This should also be noted as the reason this IS a COI issue in that they accuse everyone who tries to improve the article as being her employees or coworkers, etc. So the improving of the article is prevented solely on the COI accusations of suspicion. Panther Pink ( talk) 05:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a weird one. I am Canadian so I may be wrong. The list may be long if I am not. It wikilinks to many articles but only has 120 employees in the infobox. Notability, RS, COI, spam, merge to The Pew Charitable Trusts etc. I thought I would post here for thoughts as well. Feel free to {not done} {resolve} if you wish.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 10:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Warning Cross posted. I started at help desk and then pump/tech to see if they can database search a few users for the wikilinks.(leave at bottom?)
I warned User:FredLipman that Wikipedia discourages self-promotion,book/link canvassing, etc. In the case, the user claims to be a well-published authority on some topics. Wikipedia:COI#Citing_oneself says this may be appropriate in some circumstances as long as it's not excessive. See talk page discussion here OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Claims to be a fanatic of a person named "Nikki Xhin". The page mentioned above (since PRODed by me due to WP:N/ WP:NONSENSE/ WP:COI) tells the reader to find the person in question and that User:Nikxhinfanatics will write/wrote articles for her. J u n k c o p s ( want to talk?| my log) 07:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of this feud is taking place at The Moons where an edit war is taking place with several meat or sock puppets. Mrrooftop has been blocked but Anna Sbr quickly took their place. Now the listed IPs are reverting my edits and the edits of DMacks. Bengordelier, Jeb123abc, and Lois Moon are WP:SPAs who have been making edits here and there. Ben Gordelier is a band member and "Lois Moon" may or may not be related to the band but their unreferenced edits suggest some personal knowledge of the band.
I'm usually able to handle these situations myself but this crew is particularly persistent and I don't like dancing around WP:3RR.
This is the edit that's getting tossed back and forth right now. It's, "Full of uncited opinions, motivations, and fawning praise." and they've ignored all attempts at discussion. I'm not as concerned about that as I am the rest of the content of the article and all of the article for bands signed to Schnitzel Records Ltd. and all of the numerous files uploaded about The Moons, Schnitzel Records Ltd., and the bands it has signed. I've only turned over a few rocks but this appears to be a very widespread issue. OlYeller21 Talktome 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This editor is pretty obviously the same ESPRIS video game developer suggested by his name, which he is attempting to insert into List of video game developers. MirMahna is the name of his game. Msnicki ( talk) 20:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
While I think the edits have been made in
good faith (the editor has not set out to vandalise), I suspect the following account was established by an author for the purposes of promoting a series of books. The name of the author and the username are the same (Lee Fodi) and every edit so far (5 in total, 3 substantive) has been to include details of that author's book series in various articles. I suspect it's a matter of not knowing the rules rather than purposefully breaking them.
Stalwart111
(talk)
23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Issue has been reported here several times ( [56] [57]). To sum up the issue, a person using accounts that appear to be the subject of the article keep changing the date of birth listed in the article [58] which is currently backed up by reliable sources. I've attempted to start a discussion with the editor several times on their talk page but they continue to cite themselves in their edit summaries, claiming to be the subject of the article. They've passed an L4 warning. I don't see any other way to address this than with a block. Any admins around that can assist? OlYeller21 Talktome 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Any suggestions on what to do with the user (presumably the subject of the article)? Their intent seems to be to list the date that they feel is or know to be correct. I'm not suggesting that we go with their self-citation but I'm not sure they're going to be happy with that solution. I'd suggest we discuss it with them at this point but they've avoided all attempts to discuss. Perhaps it would be best to remove the date, see if they attempt to change it again, then block if they do? OlYeller21 Talktome 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This editor, with a COI username, has added massive amounts of copy/paste material to the article. I stumbled upon an incipient edit war just now and reverted everything since it all came straight from the school's website. I put some of the urls in my edit summaries before I realized that the whole article was copied and just rolled it back. I will notify the other editors involved now. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Greg Quinn has been created and lightly amended over several years by User:Currantman. The article is quite laudatory of Quinn and contained multiple links to his commercial currant growing concerns, I wonder if it is mr Quinn himself? There are few sources. I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done, could the experts here offer some advice? rgds 94.195.187.69 ( talk) 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Editor User:Naturalistic has identified himself as author Paul Harrison (pantheist). He wrote the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books). Some editors (perhaps including himself?) have mentioned that book (and its sales website http://www.pantheism.net ) in two articles: Pantheism and Naturalistic pantheism. This led to a Dispute resolution case at WP:DRN. It would be great if some COI experts could provide some insight at that DRN discussion page. Thanks. Noleander ( talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
User appears not to be currently active, but is the creator of the three articles listed - all of which were originally blatant advertisements for Kluger, who was the subject of this controversy wikinews:Accidental email brings product placement agency under fire for attempting to solicit product placement of Double Happiness Jeans in a Pussycat Dolls song's lyrics. I'd tagged Adam Kluger for proposed deletion, but now see that this page (created 4 may 2009) is a re-creation of a previously-deleted article in December 2008 per User talk:Keywordrenewals#Notability of Adam Kluger. I've reinstated any mention of the controversy at Product placement#Music and recording industries and The Kluger Agency (these were being replaced with Kluger self-promotion, although I haven't reviewed the full history to see if there are other WP:COI accounts behind these edits) but it may be worth keeping an eye on the affected pages (if they're salvageable) or speedying them (if they're advertising). 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The user, User:Johnjaymyers, is a candidate for United States Senate in Texas, under the Libertarian Party. He is attempting to promote his candidacy by adding himself to the main infobox of the article United States Senate election in Texas, 2012, which is traditionally only allowed if the third party candidate is polling higher than 5%. This is evidenced by this edit, and his only edits appear to be in promotion of his own candidacy. Please address this obvious conflict of interest. Thank you. Gage ( talk) 21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Today we posted a picture and information for John Jay Myers who is running for United States Senate in Texas. This picture was removed from the top right corner, which gives the impression to the average voter that there are only two candidates in this race. What purpose does it serve to do this? This is an encyclopedia site, that should present fair and balanced information, obviously we can no longer get that from major media outlets, but the people should be able to come here, see accurate non bias information and make their decisions.
The fact that I (John Jay Myers) added the information makes no difference, because there is nothing untrue in the article and nothing is a matter of opinion.
I am one of three people on the General Election ballot, and I deserve to be displayed fairly. How would anyone suggest anyone Poll higher... considering their name has never been listed on a poll, and you can't even get your information listed correctly on what is supposed to be an non bias media like wikipedia?
This is not an effort to promote my candidacy it is an effort to put up relevant information on a wikipedia page in the same manner as has been put up by/for the other candidates.
Johnjaymyers ( talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
We've not had any response from Gage - does anyone else know where we might find a policy for this 5% figure? Fayedizard ( talk) 06:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing conflict in social conservatism over an apparent academic/psycho-political trope of painting conservatives as "authoritarians". Our article on the primary thesis is right-wing authoritarianism and it does have a criticism section, which however is dismissive of contrary views. The more-or-less current form of that section was added in this edit by User:Jcbutler, who left about a year ago. J. Corey Butler is in fact a social psychology researcher. The problem perhaps is that he publishes on this particular topic; for example, I was quickly led to this paper. Therefore, in dismissing critical responses, he is defending his own research. I appreciate that credentials matter, but this seems to me to be crossing a line. Mangoe ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be promotional material masquerading as a series of articles with some suspicious removal of material and amendments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 20 (UTC)
The user's edits appear to be almost entirely BLP articles (with the exception of Livemusic, a company), and primarily consist of positive POV articles created and edited by said user. Unfortunately, the seemingly SPA nature of the account leads me to suspect that this may be a case of paid editing. Zaldax ( talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Cash Cash's management team has found this article. They've been bombing it with promotional material and selective rewriting of the musical group's own history. Attempts to initiate discussion with the IP failed, but they've registered an obvious COI account and continued. Chubbles ( talk) 06:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)