![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
MitchGWilliams has declared himself a "representative of Microsoft for their social media presence in the MENA region". The article started life as Microsoft Tunisia Scandal, and he filed an AfD saying "Microsoft have requested that this be removed." When that was closed as speedy keep, no valid deletion reason, he filed a second AfD three days later. I closed that also as speedy keep, told him that was not the way to go, pointed him to WP:PSCOI and explained to him on his talk page that he should use the article talk page to set out his problems with it and propose changes. Meanwhile Mark Arsten ( talk), the closing admin from the first AfD, has moved the article to a more neutral title and cleaned it up and de-POV-ed it considerably, and DGG ( talk) has also offered to help; but some more eyes on the article as and when Mr Williams returns would be useful. JohnCD ( talk) 21:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I just finished explaining to a PR professional on the phone that their company wasn't notable, that we have to use secondary sources and that it was promotional to create excessive awards sections that includes trivial awards. They explained that they were attempting to follow the examples established by other companies and that the following articles were the ones they were drawing from as example pages:
Some of these have stuff like citing the company website to say their products are recommended by customer XYZ. While I may not have a COI technically, I figured it would be better to post here and see if anyone is interested in doing some cleanup. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the recent edits by Murilovisck ( talk · contribs) who, by his own admission, apparently works for Mr. Martins. Of particular curiosity is that he changed the subject's middle name from Roberto to Wizard. Presumably this is a reference to Mr. Martins' founding of "Wizard Language Schools", though I have no idea if that is an official name change or just a commercial flourish. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Under the guise of trying to add references, the user Haritada has been spamming the reference sections of The Matrix and some other articles with links containing articles/assertions written by Vladimir Tumanov. I have no idea who the user is, but according to the links provided, you can see the obvious trend and conflict of interest. Multiple attempts of this on The Matrix article include: [1] [2] [3] and [4]. More attempts on other articles include: [5] [6] and [7], among others. In fact, any of his consecutive contributions on a single article, when viewed together, always promote a link to articles/works written by "Tumanov, Vladimir", and some even link to Springerlink.com in an attempt to sell the contents of the article, such as [8]. The link selling the article in the previous diff is provided here [9] for easy access.
The user has been warned about Conflict of Interest more than once by other users, including me. The attempts to persuade the user can be found here: [10], along with reasons I stated in the reason box when I made this edit: [11].
So far, the attempts to discourage the user from spamming the link has been unsuccessful, as the user ignore all reasons and warnings and does not participate in any discussions. Instead, the user uses long period of absence and tries to re-insert the links to the articles written by "Tumanov, Vladimir". This is the forth time I've removed his link from The Matrix article. Please determine if he has conflict of interest with Wikipedia and help me take appropriate actions. Thank you. Anthonydraco ( talk) 00:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned about a possible COI problem with this edit due to the name of the website and the person's username. Their only edits so far have been to make this addition to this article. 50.151.230.203 ( talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This editor has been making repeated edits of the article Derek Acorah without discussion on the talk page. This seems to be the only activity of this editor. The username of this editor implies some connection to the subject of the article. Another editor has placed a COI notice on the talk page of this editor and the behavior has continued. MrBill3 ( talk) 04:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I left out the appropriate diffs and details. The editor in question is User:Gwen Acoracah. The first edit of the Derek Acorah article by this editor occurred 7 July 2013 here. A COI notice was placed on the editors talk page here by User:C.Fred later that same day. Gwen Acorah re-edited the Derek Acorah article again on 8 July 2013 here with no discussion on the talk page. This included removing material that had been discussed on the talk page. Discussion on article talk page started here and on Gwen Acorah's user talk page here. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 05:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
User [JuneteenthDOC] has been representing Ron Myers (i think in person) because they have used wikipedia to make official responses from Ron Myers against perceived attacks on the org ref. Other sites affected by the WP:COI are here. I am not experienced with this stuff and it is very complicated to know where to go for this issue. but the personal attacks on editors is just too much with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Inayity ( talk) 22:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
In 1994, at a historic meeting of Juneteenth leaders from across America, at Christian Unity Baptist Church, in New Orleans, Louisiana, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. was choosen the Chairman of the movement to gain greater national recognition of Juneteenth in America. [1]
For over 15 years, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. has served as the Chairman, President and C.E.O. of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF) [2] and the National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC). [3]
In a unanimous resolution passed by the U.S. Senate in 2013, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D., the Founder & Chairman of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF) and the former Chairman of the Board of the National Association of Juneteenth Lineage (NAJL), is acknowledged for historic leadership and continued advocacy for Juneteenth Independence Day. [4] "Whereas national observance of Juneteenth Independence Day continues under the steadfast leadership of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation;". [5]
The Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D., is the established spokesperson and historic African American grass roots leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America (recognized by the U.S. Congress, selected by Juneteenth leaders from across America, former Chairman of the Board of the NAJL, fFounder, Chairman and President, CEO of the NJOF, also Founder and Chiarman of the National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC) [6], National Association of Juneteenth Jazz Presenters (NAJJP) [7] and the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign [8])
Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 14:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
What's up with you Inayity? Thank you for notifying me about the COI message Board.
I just need to know what I need to do to make sure that our "Modern Juneteenth Movement" information on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page is accurate and reflects the truth about our hard fought grass roots advocacy work to finally have "Juneteenth Independence Day" recognized by the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States, under the policies of Wikipedia for posting information.
As Frederick Douglass stated in his greatest speech, "What to the American Slave is Your '4th of July'?", "The 4th of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."
I except the fact that I am considered a COI, especially on the Ronald Myers Wikipedia page. A review of the history of the Ronald Myers page clearly shows I did not start the page. After reviewing it, following my review of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Wikipedia page, I added content that was more accurate.
I understand my additional content was considered a COI, as well as the additional content placed on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page.
Now, what needs to be done to improve the postings under Wikipedia standards.
BTW, thank you for not accussing me of being on an ego trip, having unprofessional web pages, taking down content on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page and Ronald Myers page without warning, etc. Wikipedia editor insults just add to injury and a bold response from yours truly.
Let's just focus on what needs to be done to make sure our African American history is posting accurately and correct on Wikipedia.
Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 13:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Bold text=== Response by National Juneteenth leader to false claim of "he created the article to help advance the subject's activities" and having a COI ===
When an African American grass roots activist leader, seriously concerned about the historic accuracy of a movement of significance to black people, commemorating our legacy of going from the belly of slave ships, to enslavement and freedom on the "19th of June", Juneteenth Independence Day, is accussed of adding contact to the Juneteenth Wikipedsia page to "advance the subject's activities", is not only an insult, but an afront to the integrity of the leadership of "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America.
My concern right now is to do all that I can to make sure our story, the "Modern Juneteenth Movement", an African American grass roots advocacy movement, like the Civil Rights Movement and the modern day Reparations Movement, is accurately posted on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page according to Wikipedsia policies and standards.
At this point in time, I want nothing more or nothing less. I forgive any Wikipedia editor for their insults and attribute them to the cultuiral bias of America's dominant culture, which is not African American.
BTW, is there a group of African American Wikipedia editors I can communicate with? I'm sure it would be very helpful in getting more black folks interested in Wikipedia.
Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 13:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing pasted text
|
---|
Congressional Record article 2 of 8
Printer Friendly Display - 4,058 bytes.[Help]
JUNETEENTH (House of Representatives - September 17, 1996)
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will recognize the significance of the oldest black celebration in American history, June 19--known affectionately as `Juneteenth .' This bill would recognize Juneteenth as the day of celebrating the end of slavery in the United States and as the true day of independence for African-Americans in this country. Juneteenth is the traditional celebration of the day on which the last slaves in America were freed. Although slavery was officially abolished in 1863, news of freedom did not spread to all slaves for another 2 1/2 years--June 19, 1865. On that day, U.S. General Gordon Granger, along with a regiment of Union Army soldiers, rode into Galveston, TX, and announced that the State's 200,000 slaves were free. Vowing to never forget the date, the former slaves coined a nickname for their cause of celebration--a blend of the words `June' and `nineteenth.' June 19, 1865, has been traditionally associated with the end of slavery in the Southwest. However, because of the importance of the holiday, it did not take long for Juneteenth celebrations to spread beyond the States in the Southwest and into other parts of the country. Today, due in large part to the hard work and dedication of individuals, like Lula Briggs Galloway and Dr. Ronald Meyer of the National Association of Juneteenth lineage, who have fought hard to revive and preserve the Juneteenth celebration, the holiday is celebrated by several million blacks and whites in more than 130 cities across the United States and Canada. In Texas and Oklahoma, Juneteenth is an official State holiday. As we prepare to revitalize the observance of Juneteenth as the true day of independence for African-Americans, it is important that we acknowledge the historical as well as political significance of the celebration. We must acknowledge, for example, that while the slaves of Texas had cause to celebrate the news of their freedom on June 19, 1865, the truth is that at the time of General Granger's historical pronouncement, the slaves were already legally free. This is because the Emancipation Proclamation had become effective nearly 2 1/2 years earlier--on January 1, 1863. From a political standpoint, therefore, Juneteenth is significant because it exemplifies how harsh and cruel the consequences can be when a breakdown in communication occurs between the Government and the American people. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dehumanizing and degrading conditions of slavery were unnecessarily prolonged for hundreds of thousands of black men, women, and children, because our American Government failed to communicate the truth. As Juneteenth celebrations continue to spread, so does a greater appreciation of African-American history. We must revive and preserve Juneteenth not only as the end of a painful chapter in American history--but also as a reminder of the importance of preserving the lines of communication between the powerful and powerless in our society. Juneteenth allows us to look back on the past with an increased awareness and heightened respect for the strength of the African-American men, women, and children, who endured unspeakable cruelties in bondage. Out of respect to our ancestors, upon whose blood, sweat, and tears, this great Nation was built, the bill I introduce today acknowledges that African-Americans in this country are not truly free, until the last of us are free. The bill I introduce today, Mr. Speaker, recognizes June 19, 1865, as a day of celebrating the end of slavery in America and as the true day of independence for African-Americans in this country. I ask all of my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Contents DisplayRev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC) |
Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 17:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This editor appears to be on a bit of a COI spree. He is editing the MySammy article, for which he appears to be the media contact [12]. He also appears to work as a PR for Daniel Chavez Moran, the founder of Grupo Vidanta and Grand luxxe. See [13] as well as this edit summary [14] Logical Cowboy ( talk) 17:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
s.p.a. doing nothing but adding links to Christian History magazine; that's all they do. Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
User name is very similar to Satya Kharkar, film maker of Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Coin Toss. Editor has had singular focus since registering in promoting items associated with Satya Kharkar (including spamming a public service film by Satya, and getting the non-notable Coin Toss film spammed on other articles) leads me to think that the editor is either the film maker or very closely related to the film maker. AfC has taken care of the current issue of the AfC submission (by petitioning and getting the submission fully page protected), but the singular focus is clearly only here to promote their works. This report was previously at WP:UAA but was declined there for not representing other people. Hasteur ( talk) 17:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
User is a manager of a Burger King franchise who repeatedly deletes negative information about the business.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.106.81 ( talk • contribs)
After this revert [16] of an obvoius COI edit, User:RitchieBros created User:Ozvickijc and continued editing. Don't think this warrants a SPI case. Mlpearc ( powwow) 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Axial engine #Present day is nothing but a bundle of three different COI subsection, at least 2.1 and 2.3 certainly are not supported by independent sources. I’m not willing to intervene further; maybe somebody else? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I am the person in the article and I asked a professional writer to prepare the page for me in Wiki format drawing information from various sources. Unfortunately, the editor posted it. One of the books I published most recently is [us.macmillan.com/theagelessgeneration/ Ageless Generation]. On Amazon Ageless Generation - #1 in Biotechnology Category; another book is by a much smaller publisher was illustrated prose Dating A.I. and a recent popular article at HuffPo 13 reasons. In today's world this may not provide adequate notability; therefore, I would like to take the liberty to ask you to take a look at the article and delete or edit it with a neutral view or determine whether the COI tag is necessary. Biogerontology ( talk) 21:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.200.228.113 ( talk) 04:12, 29 May 2013
The user started the article 3 years ago, with content that seemed like self-advertising. Now the named individual is in the news for something he did, the user started to whitewash all negative content added to the page and tried to have the page deleted entirely. DHN ( talk) 05:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday, an editor with an IP address corresponding to the Voice of Russia (the Russian state radio station) essentially rewrote the article on that organization. (Diff: [18]) I reverted the change and left a COI notice on the IP editor's talk page. Today, a new editor has made the same changes User:Голос России ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [19]. The username means "Voice of Russia" and, in an edit summary (in Russian), the user says "Hello, this is the official account radio "Voice of Russia", we want to change the information on this page" (per Google translate). I have reverted again and asked the user to discuss the changes they are interested in making on the talk page. GabrielF ( talk) 07:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Being edited by User:Innersanctum.management to add COI and puffery. 86.159.24.180 ( talk) 14:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, earlier this year I created an article for Robert Sears (physician), and it seems he has discovered it, creating an account ( User:DrBobSears) especially for the purpose of editing his own article, which he apparently doesn't know you aren't supposed to do. I would have come here sooner, since the edits were made months ago, but I didn't know this page existed until recently. Jinkinson ( talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I know it's never okay to openly out someone, but I recently discovered an editor adding questionable book references to a series of articles on my watchlist. This user has only made 35 edits in total, and every single one of them is adding a reference to this or one of two other books by the same author.
All three books are self-published through AuthorHouse or CreateSpace.
Thinking this very suspicious, I decided to Google the author's name, along with the particular editor's username. I found out immediately that the two are one and the same person, since the author has used the same username on other sites.
I have e-mailed the user about this and requested that he remove the questionable references (none of them have any place on Wikipedia to begin with, COI or not), and indicated that I do not intend to start an edit war or to out him, but to bring the specifics of the case to the Wikipedia community would almost immediately out the user, based on the fact that his contributions make his identity perfectly obvious. The user has yet to respond to me, either by e-mail or by undoing the edits.
I now know beyond all doubt that the author registered a Wikipedia account in order to advertise his own books. But by dealing with the issue directly (removing the advertising) I would be effectively outing the user, especially now that I have posted here. However, the edits definitely need to be undone because they are obviously in poor taste. The user has already effectively outed himself, of course, by mentioning his own real-world identity in every single edit he made, but then am I at fault for even trying to draw the attention of the community??
Can I just e-mail some other user and have them undo the edits in my stead, so as not to link the troublesome editor with this post? Or, better yet, ask such a user to e-mail me?
Kind regards,
Jubei the samurai (
talk)
10:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In this case, if you've found that User:LostNemo is P. Sherman, who's written lots of self published books on regal tang, then remove the texts where they're not adding to the encyclopedia. It may be necessary to mention that the User:LostNemo is P. Sherman, but don't mention that they're P. Sherman, 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney, a dentist with a niece called Darla etc. Does that make sense? WormTT( talk) 07:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not an unusual case, see WP:BOOKSPAM. I have encountered a case myself, made more complicated by the fact that the author (in the case I found) actually contributed a few new articles to Wikipedia, but added his book to about a dozen more, where he contributed nothing else. I chose not to delete his book in deference of the content he actually contributed. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 14:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
A purpose appears to be promotional on behalf of artists represented by DC Moore. Many of the articles are laden with the usual C.V. listings of shows, and include Moore's website as a reference. JNW ( talk) 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi – I'm notifying people here that I work for Bell Pottinger (see my talk user page for more info) and have proposed minor edits to a number of articles on behalf of my client, the Government of Serbia. Those articles are:
Accession of Serbia to the European Union,
Government of Serbia,
National Assembly (Serbia) and
Ivica Dačić. See the talk pages for details and feel free to chip in on any/all of these suggestions. Many thanks.
Vivj2012 (
talk)
09:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to change/edit the Penn State Nittany Lions Football page in regards to the all-time team versus team records in their rivalry games getting the records up to date and accurate with the number of games won/lost when considering the child sex abuse scandal and the wins taken away from that. But someone keeps deleting my edits and is trying to have me blocked from Wikipedia editing for some reason. They keep putting back outdated information when the information I have entered is correct and up to date. My main antagonist is Trlovejoy.
Edited by :-
Welcomed with COI template, and seems to ignore clear connection between user name and articles edited. sats 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
about the company is no big deal despite having the COI tag on the page. sats 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This obviously won't apply in contentious cases, but when you are corresponding, on- or off- wiki, with article subjects who make good-faith edits, please consider asking them to contribute a short audio recoding of their spoken voice, as described at Wikipedia:Voice intro project (currently a holding page, linking to the project page on Commons). The template {{ Voice Intro Project invitation}} is also available for your convenience. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
User edited the article in question, apparently in good faith, to update the radio station's broadcast schedule. However, the article states that the radio station is owned by a company called Entercom Communications. Tckma ( talk) 18:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor has accused me of having a non-disclosed COI here and I mentioned that the right place for determining whether an editor has a COI is this board. The editor has not responded to my arguments about his adding content not directly supported by the source and has suggested that the article be reverted to his version on the basis of their COI accusations. He also continues to refer to my prior account name, even though they are aware I changed usernames to avoid personally identifiable information. Not sure where to go from there, but based on the tone, I figured it would escalate here quickly anyway. Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
24.95.76.248 claims to be Gary Cox [20] [21] [22], a lawyer and general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund ( http://farmtoconsumer.org), an organization that promotes raw milk and fringe theories about it.
His edits to date have been what you'd expect of a new editor that's a lawyer that defends promoters of fringe theories: violations of WP:V, WP:OR/SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. He likes to juxtapose information in a misleading way to promote the pov of the organizations he represents. He has a WP:BATTLE mentality, and has ignored comments to him about NPOV and COI beyond claiming he is unbiased. He doesn't have many edits yet, so the problems are obvious and blatant from my perspective. I can provide diffs if needed.
I always like to think that new editors can learn how to contribute in a positive manner, but he's off to a very bad start. A short block is probably warranted. How much trouble would it be to give him a (short?) ban from all relevant articles while still allowing him to contribute to the talk pages? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 68.173.190.124 ( talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC) In 2008 I purchased 50 % of a partnership (we shared same lawyer) 3 month later we inter a franchise agreement using same lawyer 2010 I used same layer to do a closing of another business 2010 also uses same lawyer for breaking a business partnership agreement using same lawyer In 2012 I had a fake lease under my name and the franchiser another sight by the same lawyer Know it been almost two years that I been with a different lawyer because the franchisor want to close my business down Back in 2008 my layer ( the one I thought it was my layer had me sign a consented staining I didn't want counsel) I just have a associated degree if I had known he wasn't my layer I was able to afford one At the time and won't be getting sue about to lose my bread and butter .
There has been repeated editing of the article by User:Stevefearn, as well as similar edits in the recent past by users such as User:Hartopj, User:KateCorradi and User:GinstersCornwall. A person called Steve Fearn identifies themselves on LinkedIn here as "Brand Engagement Manager at Ginsters", responsible for "Management and generation of digital strategies to drive online traffic to both company website and social media platforms; Developing and managing specific digital marketing campaigns; Tracking conversion rates and monitoring brand engagement levels across platforms; Overseeing the social media strategy promoting continuity across wider comms/CRM strategy; Managing online brand campaigns to raise brand awareness; Responsibility for planning and budgetary control of all digital marketing activity; Evaluating customer research, market conditions and competitor data; Review new technologies and keep the company at the forefront of developments in digital marketing..." User:Stevefearn has been warned for apparent COI, with no response. Any advice? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
AP writer Charles Hanley's behavior at the No Gun Ri Massacre article needs to be addressed. Hanley's work on this subject has been the subject to fair degree of criticism (for reasons I need not mention here) by other writers and historians. Hanley is currently is editing the article under username Cjhanley (a fact he freely admits) and refuses to have material introduced into the article regardless if it meets sourcing requirements WP:V, WP:RS if it does not conform to the reporting he did on the subject. It seems he has a particular animus towards Westpoint historian LtCol Robert Bateman whose book and writings on this subject Hanley wont entertain inclusion of. WeldNeck ( talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Late last year, Hanley wrote a nine-page letter to Stackpole Books, the Pennsylvania publisher bringing out Bateman's book this month, saying it would be a "grave mistake" to publish Bateman's "diatribes and defamations." A copy of the letter, filled with personal attacks against the author, was made available to The Chronicle. The letter is the kind of dark threat that gives free speech experts the chills -- "an effort at prior restraint," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists -- not to mention the fact that in this case, there is a certain reversal of roles. "It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person," said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. "The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable."
WeldNeck ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to bring to the attention of the community User:Setomorp, who personal information removed by Andrew 327. This user created an article on behalf of Christy Lee Rogers, a church member. When I started the AfD for this article and stated that there was a potential conflict of interest on the part of Setomorp and that it is possible the article is a vanity article, I was shot down by others who ignored the fact that there are barely any secondary or tertiary sources that meet our standards of reliability and verifiability. Anyone who bothered to do a search would discover that the few articles appearing in magazines such as Vanity Fair and Bazaar did not contain any verifiable data, indeed containing at most a blurb as virtually all the articles are image-heavy with little to no informative text, and a couple of interviews which also do not provide any verifiable details or data regarding the subject. The rest are all literally blogs. Considering the standard set by WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, as I have stated on the article's talk, the article will remain at best a stub, and at worst, will eventually become an out-and-out advertorial. The fact that Setomorp, who undoubtedly is an employee of the aforementioned Scientologist-run PR firm in the UK, there is a definite conflict of interest on the part of this user who should, out of respect for community policies, refrain from further involvement in that article as well as refraining from starting any new articles for Scientologists.
While I consider the article to be a rather pointless exercise, since there is no verifiable date of birth for the artist, no verifiable place of birth, no verifiable record of education or employment or how they produce the photography, etc and taking into account the fact that every single source, whether in print or on the Web, uses statements, claims, and assertions directly from the subject herself, as there are not even any external sources, I really have no opinion as it seems AfD's lately are a hell of a lot more lenient and inclusionary compared to the more stringent standards upheld in years past. But it is disturbing that yet another PR firm connected to Scientology is shamelessly taking advantage of Wikipedia for promotional ends. The edits of User:Setomorp do not show any attempt at upholding guidelines and policy, but rather promoting advertorial-style copy. A similar situation apparently had occurred on the page of Grant Cardone, who for quite some time had a Wikipedia article that was nothing more than pure advertorial promotion. As with the articles of a number of low level Scientologist notables, Cardone's article cannot be improved very much since there are very few reliable, verifiable secondary and tertiary sources -- most of the article is forced to use Cardone himself as the paramount source.
Taking into consideration the conflicts and melodrama that surrounded Scientology's official involvement in editing Wikipedia, I urge the community to not take these issues lightly and if possible, for the community to take a stronger line against the editing of articles by paid PR writers. Thank you, Laval ( talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The behaviour and a technical aspect of 141.0.153.217 (it has not been CheckUsered) effectively confirms that the subject has been cleansing his own entry. Among other things, this edit - with a totally disingenuous edit summary - removed mention from the lead that the company the subject operates was issued with a court order to enforce the repayment of debts, and removed mention of him having lost his previous employer, The Telegraph, a significant amount of money. That was after it was editorialised in this edit by a German IP address, which also inserted promotional-y testimonials in the lead section and also uses exactly the same elaborate/prosaic style of edit summary.
I actually created this article, but I feel that a conflict of interest - I write for the The Telegraph - prevents me from intervening in the way that is necessary: obviously the editing of one's own Wikipedia article is allowed, but edits like these and the spreading of scrutiny to make them is not, and on that basis, the reference to him losing The Telegraph a lot of money should be restored. WilliamH ( talk) 06:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Although this user has declared a Conflict of Interest, she has consistently ignored the advice of other editors on her talk page to stop directly editing articles with which she has such a conflict of interest. She continues to edit the page of her employer as well as those related to her work there. This is in direct violation of the Conflict of Interest policy. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 07:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Paid advocates: If you have an ethical responsibility to edit Wikipedia to advance your client or employer's interests, then you stand in a clear conflict of interest and should not edit articles directly, even with disclosure. You may be professionally obligated to advance goals that conflict with neutrality and Wikipedia's mission. This includes lawyers, public relations representatives, corporate communicators, marketers, and others in similar positions. This kind of engagement is very controversial and often results in community and broader media backlash if discovered.
This appears to be the author in question. Ealexander3 has made additional edits without responding to my query. Ealexander3 has also edited Eben Alexander, the great-grandfather of Eben Alexander (author).
Various red flags: no contributions to any other pages, addition of unsourced information, "Dr. Alexander's extraordinary experience..." [25], and regarding the writer who criticized Alexander's book in Esquire, "...Luke Dittrich and Esquire had committed journalistic malpractice through their blatant disregard for pursuing and conveying facts about Proof of Heaven and Dr. Eben Alexander." [26] Vzaak ( talk)
Posting same issue as was at UAA. This user has a single-use account and refuses (semi-)friendly attempts to resolve issues and has received a myriad of warnings with no nothing backing it up. Further, I view some of the comments on my talk page as veiled personal attacks, such as the question on my editing abilities and the claim that I was "leveling accusations" without checking my facts. I have been thorough in this investigation. For this reason, this is the final noticeboard that I am posting at to avoid the appearance of harassment. Jackson Peebles ( talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The IP 74.66.235.121 is repeatedly deleting the entire content of my edits even though I am citing independent sources.
There is no explanation why my edits are being deleted and my calls for discussion on the talk page are not answered.
This organization has a problematic history and the fact is that it has been left by the majority of its member families last September including the founder families following a prolonged conflict during which falsified documents surfaced as well as numerous disregards of the non for profit law and IRS guidelines for non for profit 501c3 organizations. I believe that this IP is closely connected to the current leadership which is trying to "delete" the problems from the organization history using Wikipedia for their own interests.
There are false and self promoting statements in the article as well: Neli Hadjiyska is not an educator (she's been selling airplane tickets for a tourist agency for the last 15+ years) and was not the founder of the school. These facts are well known by the Bulgarian community in New York.
All I am trying to do is add information to the article so neutrality is achieved.
I believe this IP should be asked to disclose his/her interest in the organization.
I also believe he/she is operating form two different IPs. The second one is 71.249.192.199
The same editor 74.66.235.121 created also the Bulgarian version of the article and is also trying to protect his/her version of the article in the same aggressive way deleting any edits that are not in sync with the false story they are creating.
Please look into this matter as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Star Gazer 13 (
talk)
22:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Star Gazer 13
On Commons, User:Rimbaud22ca has identified himself as Adrian du Plessis, manager of Allison Crowe. he also states that he is User:Adrian22 here, an editor who has been heavily involved with editing Allison Crowe. Perhaps someone can de-puff the article and remove some of the many unnecessary images? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Userpage text appears self-promotional. Tckma ( talk) 18:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
New editor with COI (Coi declared here) started to edit Tekhsnabexport and probably needs some assistance. I see the current edits somehow problematic. Beagel ( talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been relentlessly accused of having a COI with respect to the suite of agricultural biotechnology articles, and I am sick of it. I wish to confidentially reveal my identity and professional work, and have COIN rule on whether I have a COI. Jytdog ( talk) 20:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Just dropping here a quick note to say that I have been in contact with Jytdog, and I am confident that he does not have a conflict of interest with respect to GMOs, or GMO food controversies, or other such things. I will likely provide a more detailed statement soon. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines a conflict of interest in the following manner: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The guideline goes on to describe in more detail various types of conflicts of interest.
In a nutshell, Jytdog ( talk · contribs) does not have a conflict of interest. To my knowledge, based on both Jytdog's email to me, and information I found elsewhere, he does not have any financial motive to promote the safety of genetically modified organisms.
While it is true that some researchers within Jytdog's university system receive public and private funding for GMO research and dissemination, and the university system may profit from the resulting technology, the campus where Jytdog works does not perform agricultural research or hold agricultural patents. Jytdog's day to day work has nothing to do with agricultural biotechnology, and he receives no financial benefit from public acceptance of GMOs.
I don't know if some editors feel that university students and employees may have a conflict of interest regarding technologies that may profit the university, but I do not. Your typical university has hundreds or thousands of scientists conducting research on a myriad of subjects. For a sufficiently large university, such a viewpoint would declare that every student and employee has a conflict of interest in nearly every technological subject, even though most obtain no financial or otherwise personal benefit from the research.
I sincerely believe, based on the information provided to me, that Jytdog is not motivated by personal gain or anything else that may be defined by Wikipedia as a conflict of interest. The same general theme here also goes for a13ean ( talk · contribs), who also emailed me with his personal information.
For full disclosure, for about a year I held a job as a technician with a group that developed genetically modified organisms. I have not held that job now for years. I gain no financial benefit from their continued work, and I have no desire to return to that group when I graduate. I am currently a graduate student at a University where research into GMOs is conducted, but my own work does not touch the subject, no one in my lab studies GMOs, and I gain no personal benefit from the work conducted by those scientists who do. Someguy1221 ( talk) 00:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Move to mark as resolved. I have read through this, and it seems as though a mutual agreement has been made. If I may throw in my two cents (even though I'm moving to close this), one is innocent until proven guilty on Wikipedia, as we
assume good faith (bla, bla, bla, I know you all know this, but still). It's totally inappropriate to have to prove yourself unless their is substantial evidence to the contrary. --
Jackson Peebles (
talk)
10:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Gh26 has a personal/mentoring relationship with Jill Purce and created the article Jill Purce. Gh26 has also been involved with editing the article of Purce's husband Rupert Sheldrake, who according to Purce "thinks that mantras and rituals work through morphic resonance" [28], " morphic resonance" being a redirect for Rupert Sheldrake.
If the COI is already enough then going into Gh26's problems at Rupert Sheldrake would be overkill. Otherwise here are a couple examples:
Vzaak ( talk) 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The general test for WP:SPA is "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." I would argue that because I have been careful to allow the mainstream view to remain in place but have been making a case for the marginal view to be represented makes the case that I am, as much as one can reasonably be, neutral. I also felt that I would be of better service as an editor focusing on topics that I know about rather than spreading myself thin over topics that I know less about. Gh26 ( talk) 13:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Gh26 ( talk · contribs), this is the conflict of interest noticeboard - this may seem obvious but it's for discussing conflicts of interest. You've already proven yourself more than capapble of discussing the Rupert Sheldrake article at talk:Rupert Sheldrake. That is not really important here. If you want to contribute here, can you acknowledge your conflict of interest and explain how you still think you can constructively contribute to the article in an unbiased manner? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 23:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said above quoting the COI guideline, I argue that I do not have a conflict of interest, because I have only tried to make a page more neutral, rather than less neutral. If I was getting constantly engaged in edit wars to banish the mainstream view and promote the marginal, so that the marginal view becomes all that people see then I would have a conflict of interest. However, I have not done this. I have engaged in discussion on the talk page, rather than getting involved in edit wars, and my concern has been to make the page more neutral. Therefore I do not feel I have any conflict of interest to declare. You think I am biased and I think you are biased; this is an unresolved dispute, not a case of COI. By getting rid of me, you remove an opponent who is able to argue against your edits. Wanting to eliminating opponents when they argue against your large numbers of edits on the talk page, but when they make a minimal number of edits in comparison with you raises suspicion. Gh26 ( talk) 08: 28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
In answer to your point on COI, "researched" is correct. My music PhD thesis is a psychological/anthropological study of chant and led me to discover and research the work of Purce online, followed by research interviews. It was purely a matter of coincidence that this led me to the work of Sheldrake, as his ideas on social behaviour were relevant to my research on group psychology. There is no link between their work and most people don't even know they are together. Your sample, where Purce quotes Sheldrake, was merely because someone specifically asked her about him in an interview, if there was any connection between their work - her brief response must have been the best she could find by way of an answer, as her work has nothing to do with his. Gh26 ( talk) 17:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I will privately send details to an administrator that directly show the personal/mentoring relationship, the reason for this COI notice. There are many issues on display here, but to summarize the main ones are Gh26's:
Vzaak ( talk) 18:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There was no COI while creating Purce article, research into Purce's work led to research interviews as described, then to Purce article.
No dissembling - just repeatedly describing the situation as it is.
No COI edits".
All policies read and understood.
No attacks just defending.
As described above, a) research into Purce on the voice, led to b) Purce mentioning Sheldrake's work on psychology of groups which led to c) interest in and then research into Sheldrakes work which led to d) comments on talk page and very few edits to Sheldrake's article.
Gh26 ( talk) 00:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
MitchGWilliams has declared himself a "representative of Microsoft for their social media presence in the MENA region". The article started life as Microsoft Tunisia Scandal, and he filed an AfD saying "Microsoft have requested that this be removed." When that was closed as speedy keep, no valid deletion reason, he filed a second AfD three days later. I closed that also as speedy keep, told him that was not the way to go, pointed him to WP:PSCOI and explained to him on his talk page that he should use the article talk page to set out his problems with it and propose changes. Meanwhile Mark Arsten ( talk), the closing admin from the first AfD, has moved the article to a more neutral title and cleaned it up and de-POV-ed it considerably, and DGG ( talk) has also offered to help; but some more eyes on the article as and when Mr Williams returns would be useful. JohnCD ( talk) 21:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I just finished explaining to a PR professional on the phone that their company wasn't notable, that we have to use secondary sources and that it was promotional to create excessive awards sections that includes trivial awards. They explained that they were attempting to follow the examples established by other companies and that the following articles were the ones they were drawing from as example pages:
Some of these have stuff like citing the company website to say their products are recommended by customer XYZ. While I may not have a COI technically, I figured it would be better to post here and see if anyone is interested in doing some cleanup. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the recent edits by Murilovisck ( talk · contribs) who, by his own admission, apparently works for Mr. Martins. Of particular curiosity is that he changed the subject's middle name from Roberto to Wizard. Presumably this is a reference to Mr. Martins' founding of "Wizard Language Schools", though I have no idea if that is an official name change or just a commercial flourish. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Under the guise of trying to add references, the user Haritada has been spamming the reference sections of The Matrix and some other articles with links containing articles/assertions written by Vladimir Tumanov. I have no idea who the user is, but according to the links provided, you can see the obvious trend and conflict of interest. Multiple attempts of this on The Matrix article include: [1] [2] [3] and [4]. More attempts on other articles include: [5] [6] and [7], among others. In fact, any of his consecutive contributions on a single article, when viewed together, always promote a link to articles/works written by "Tumanov, Vladimir", and some even link to Springerlink.com in an attempt to sell the contents of the article, such as [8]. The link selling the article in the previous diff is provided here [9] for easy access.
The user has been warned about Conflict of Interest more than once by other users, including me. The attempts to persuade the user can be found here: [10], along with reasons I stated in the reason box when I made this edit: [11].
So far, the attempts to discourage the user from spamming the link has been unsuccessful, as the user ignore all reasons and warnings and does not participate in any discussions. Instead, the user uses long period of absence and tries to re-insert the links to the articles written by "Tumanov, Vladimir". This is the forth time I've removed his link from The Matrix article. Please determine if he has conflict of interest with Wikipedia and help me take appropriate actions. Thank you. Anthonydraco ( talk) 00:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned about a possible COI problem with this edit due to the name of the website and the person's username. Their only edits so far have been to make this addition to this article. 50.151.230.203 ( talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This editor has been making repeated edits of the article Derek Acorah without discussion on the talk page. This seems to be the only activity of this editor. The username of this editor implies some connection to the subject of the article. Another editor has placed a COI notice on the talk page of this editor and the behavior has continued. MrBill3 ( talk) 04:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I left out the appropriate diffs and details. The editor in question is User:Gwen Acoracah. The first edit of the Derek Acorah article by this editor occurred 7 July 2013 here. A COI notice was placed on the editors talk page here by User:C.Fred later that same day. Gwen Acorah re-edited the Derek Acorah article again on 8 July 2013 here with no discussion on the talk page. This included removing material that had been discussed on the talk page. Discussion on article talk page started here and on Gwen Acorah's user talk page here. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 05:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
User [JuneteenthDOC] has been representing Ron Myers (i think in person) because they have used wikipedia to make official responses from Ron Myers against perceived attacks on the org ref. Other sites affected by the WP:COI are here. I am not experienced with this stuff and it is very complicated to know where to go for this issue. but the personal attacks on editors is just too much with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Inayity ( talk) 22:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
In 1994, at a historic meeting of Juneteenth leaders from across America, at Christian Unity Baptist Church, in New Orleans, Louisiana, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. was choosen the Chairman of the movement to gain greater national recognition of Juneteenth in America. [1]
For over 15 years, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. has served as the Chairman, President and C.E.O. of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF) [2] and the National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC). [3]
In a unanimous resolution passed by the U.S. Senate in 2013, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D., the Founder & Chairman of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF) and the former Chairman of the Board of the National Association of Juneteenth Lineage (NAJL), is acknowledged for historic leadership and continued advocacy for Juneteenth Independence Day. [4] "Whereas national observance of Juneteenth Independence Day continues under the steadfast leadership of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation;". [5]
The Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D., is the established spokesperson and historic African American grass roots leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America (recognized by the U.S. Congress, selected by Juneteenth leaders from across America, former Chairman of the Board of the NAJL, fFounder, Chairman and President, CEO of the NJOF, also Founder and Chiarman of the National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC) [6], National Association of Juneteenth Jazz Presenters (NAJJP) [7] and the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign [8])
Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 14:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
What's up with you Inayity? Thank you for notifying me about the COI message Board.
I just need to know what I need to do to make sure that our "Modern Juneteenth Movement" information on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page is accurate and reflects the truth about our hard fought grass roots advocacy work to finally have "Juneteenth Independence Day" recognized by the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States, under the policies of Wikipedia for posting information.
As Frederick Douglass stated in his greatest speech, "What to the American Slave is Your '4th of July'?", "The 4th of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."
I except the fact that I am considered a COI, especially on the Ronald Myers Wikipedia page. A review of the history of the Ronald Myers page clearly shows I did not start the page. After reviewing it, following my review of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Wikipedia page, I added content that was more accurate.
I understand my additional content was considered a COI, as well as the additional content placed on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page.
Now, what needs to be done to improve the postings under Wikipedia standards.
BTW, thank you for not accussing me of being on an ego trip, having unprofessional web pages, taking down content on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page and Ronald Myers page without warning, etc. Wikipedia editor insults just add to injury and a bold response from yours truly.
Let's just focus on what needs to be done to make sure our African American history is posting accurately and correct on Wikipedia.
Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 13:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Bold text=== Response by National Juneteenth leader to false claim of "he created the article to help advance the subject's activities" and having a COI ===
When an African American grass roots activist leader, seriously concerned about the historic accuracy of a movement of significance to black people, commemorating our legacy of going from the belly of slave ships, to enslavement and freedom on the "19th of June", Juneteenth Independence Day, is accussed of adding contact to the Juneteenth Wikipedsia page to "advance the subject's activities", is not only an insult, but an afront to the integrity of the leadership of "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America.
My concern right now is to do all that I can to make sure our story, the "Modern Juneteenth Movement", an African American grass roots advocacy movement, like the Civil Rights Movement and the modern day Reparations Movement, is accurately posted on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page according to Wikipedsia policies and standards.
At this point in time, I want nothing more or nothing less. I forgive any Wikipedia editor for their insults and attribute them to the cultuiral bias of America's dominant culture, which is not African American.
BTW, is there a group of African American Wikipedia editors I can communicate with? I'm sure it would be very helpful in getting more black folks interested in Wikipedia.
Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 13:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing pasted text
|
---|
Congressional Record article 2 of 8
Printer Friendly Display - 4,058 bytes.[Help]
JUNETEENTH (House of Representatives - September 17, 1996)
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will recognize the significance of the oldest black celebration in American history, June 19--known affectionately as `Juneteenth .' This bill would recognize Juneteenth as the day of celebrating the end of slavery in the United States and as the true day of independence for African-Americans in this country. Juneteenth is the traditional celebration of the day on which the last slaves in America were freed. Although slavery was officially abolished in 1863, news of freedom did not spread to all slaves for another 2 1/2 years--June 19, 1865. On that day, U.S. General Gordon Granger, along with a regiment of Union Army soldiers, rode into Galveston, TX, and announced that the State's 200,000 slaves were free. Vowing to never forget the date, the former slaves coined a nickname for their cause of celebration--a blend of the words `June' and `nineteenth.' June 19, 1865, has been traditionally associated with the end of slavery in the Southwest. However, because of the importance of the holiday, it did not take long for Juneteenth celebrations to spread beyond the States in the Southwest and into other parts of the country. Today, due in large part to the hard work and dedication of individuals, like Lula Briggs Galloway and Dr. Ronald Meyer of the National Association of Juneteenth lineage, who have fought hard to revive and preserve the Juneteenth celebration, the holiday is celebrated by several million blacks and whites in more than 130 cities across the United States and Canada. In Texas and Oklahoma, Juneteenth is an official State holiday. As we prepare to revitalize the observance of Juneteenth as the true day of independence for African-Americans, it is important that we acknowledge the historical as well as political significance of the celebration. We must acknowledge, for example, that while the slaves of Texas had cause to celebrate the news of their freedom on June 19, 1865, the truth is that at the time of General Granger's historical pronouncement, the slaves were already legally free. This is because the Emancipation Proclamation had become effective nearly 2 1/2 years earlier--on January 1, 1863. From a political standpoint, therefore, Juneteenth is significant because it exemplifies how harsh and cruel the consequences can be when a breakdown in communication occurs between the Government and the American people. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dehumanizing and degrading conditions of slavery were unnecessarily prolonged for hundreds of thousands of black men, women, and children, because our American Government failed to communicate the truth. As Juneteenth celebrations continue to spread, so does a greater appreciation of African-American history. We must revive and preserve Juneteenth not only as the end of a painful chapter in American history--but also as a reminder of the importance of preserving the lines of communication between the powerful and powerless in our society. Juneteenth allows us to look back on the past with an increased awareness and heightened respect for the strength of the African-American men, women, and children, who endured unspeakable cruelties in bondage. Out of respect to our ancestors, upon whose blood, sweat, and tears, this great Nation was built, the bill I introduce today acknowledges that African-Americans in this country are not truly free, until the last of us are free. The bill I introduce today, Mr. Speaker, recognizes June 19, 1865, as a day of celebrating the end of slavery in America and as the true day of independence for African-Americans in this country. I ask all of my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Contents DisplayRev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC) |
Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC ( talk) 17:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This editor appears to be on a bit of a COI spree. He is editing the MySammy article, for which he appears to be the media contact [12]. He also appears to work as a PR for Daniel Chavez Moran, the founder of Grupo Vidanta and Grand luxxe. See [13] as well as this edit summary [14] Logical Cowboy ( talk) 17:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
s.p.a. doing nothing but adding links to Christian History magazine; that's all they do. Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
User name is very similar to Satya Kharkar, film maker of Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Coin Toss. Editor has had singular focus since registering in promoting items associated with Satya Kharkar (including spamming a public service film by Satya, and getting the non-notable Coin Toss film spammed on other articles) leads me to think that the editor is either the film maker or very closely related to the film maker. AfC has taken care of the current issue of the AfC submission (by petitioning and getting the submission fully page protected), but the singular focus is clearly only here to promote their works. This report was previously at WP:UAA but was declined there for not representing other people. Hasteur ( talk) 17:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
User is a manager of a Burger King franchise who repeatedly deletes negative information about the business.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.106.81 ( talk • contribs)
After this revert [16] of an obvoius COI edit, User:RitchieBros created User:Ozvickijc and continued editing. Don't think this warrants a SPI case. Mlpearc ( powwow) 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Axial engine #Present day is nothing but a bundle of three different COI subsection, at least 2.1 and 2.3 certainly are not supported by independent sources. I’m not willing to intervene further; maybe somebody else? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I am the person in the article and I asked a professional writer to prepare the page for me in Wiki format drawing information from various sources. Unfortunately, the editor posted it. One of the books I published most recently is [us.macmillan.com/theagelessgeneration/ Ageless Generation]. On Amazon Ageless Generation - #1 in Biotechnology Category; another book is by a much smaller publisher was illustrated prose Dating A.I. and a recent popular article at HuffPo 13 reasons. In today's world this may not provide adequate notability; therefore, I would like to take the liberty to ask you to take a look at the article and delete or edit it with a neutral view or determine whether the COI tag is necessary. Biogerontology ( talk) 21:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.200.228.113 ( talk) 04:12, 29 May 2013
The user started the article 3 years ago, with content that seemed like self-advertising. Now the named individual is in the news for something he did, the user started to whitewash all negative content added to the page and tried to have the page deleted entirely. DHN ( talk) 05:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday, an editor with an IP address corresponding to the Voice of Russia (the Russian state radio station) essentially rewrote the article on that organization. (Diff: [18]) I reverted the change and left a COI notice on the IP editor's talk page. Today, a new editor has made the same changes User:Голос России ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [19]. The username means "Voice of Russia" and, in an edit summary (in Russian), the user says "Hello, this is the official account radio "Voice of Russia", we want to change the information on this page" (per Google translate). I have reverted again and asked the user to discuss the changes they are interested in making on the talk page. GabrielF ( talk) 07:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Being edited by User:Innersanctum.management to add COI and puffery. 86.159.24.180 ( talk) 14:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, earlier this year I created an article for Robert Sears (physician), and it seems he has discovered it, creating an account ( User:DrBobSears) especially for the purpose of editing his own article, which he apparently doesn't know you aren't supposed to do. I would have come here sooner, since the edits were made months ago, but I didn't know this page existed until recently. Jinkinson ( talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I know it's never okay to openly out someone, but I recently discovered an editor adding questionable book references to a series of articles on my watchlist. This user has only made 35 edits in total, and every single one of them is adding a reference to this or one of two other books by the same author.
All three books are self-published through AuthorHouse or CreateSpace.
Thinking this very suspicious, I decided to Google the author's name, along with the particular editor's username. I found out immediately that the two are one and the same person, since the author has used the same username on other sites.
I have e-mailed the user about this and requested that he remove the questionable references (none of them have any place on Wikipedia to begin with, COI or not), and indicated that I do not intend to start an edit war or to out him, but to bring the specifics of the case to the Wikipedia community would almost immediately out the user, based on the fact that his contributions make his identity perfectly obvious. The user has yet to respond to me, either by e-mail or by undoing the edits.
I now know beyond all doubt that the author registered a Wikipedia account in order to advertise his own books. But by dealing with the issue directly (removing the advertising) I would be effectively outing the user, especially now that I have posted here. However, the edits definitely need to be undone because they are obviously in poor taste. The user has already effectively outed himself, of course, by mentioning his own real-world identity in every single edit he made, but then am I at fault for even trying to draw the attention of the community??
Can I just e-mail some other user and have them undo the edits in my stead, so as not to link the troublesome editor with this post? Or, better yet, ask such a user to e-mail me?
Kind regards,
Jubei the samurai (
talk)
10:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In this case, if you've found that User:LostNemo is P. Sherman, who's written lots of self published books on regal tang, then remove the texts where they're not adding to the encyclopedia. It may be necessary to mention that the User:LostNemo is P. Sherman, but don't mention that they're P. Sherman, 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney, a dentist with a niece called Darla etc. Does that make sense? WormTT( talk) 07:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not an unusual case, see WP:BOOKSPAM. I have encountered a case myself, made more complicated by the fact that the author (in the case I found) actually contributed a few new articles to Wikipedia, but added his book to about a dozen more, where he contributed nothing else. I chose not to delete his book in deference of the content he actually contributed. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 14:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
A purpose appears to be promotional on behalf of artists represented by DC Moore. Many of the articles are laden with the usual C.V. listings of shows, and include Moore's website as a reference. JNW ( talk) 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi – I'm notifying people here that I work for Bell Pottinger (see my talk user page for more info) and have proposed minor edits to a number of articles on behalf of my client, the Government of Serbia. Those articles are:
Accession of Serbia to the European Union,
Government of Serbia,
National Assembly (Serbia) and
Ivica Dačić. See the talk pages for details and feel free to chip in on any/all of these suggestions. Many thanks.
Vivj2012 (
talk)
09:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to change/edit the Penn State Nittany Lions Football page in regards to the all-time team versus team records in their rivalry games getting the records up to date and accurate with the number of games won/lost when considering the child sex abuse scandal and the wins taken away from that. But someone keeps deleting my edits and is trying to have me blocked from Wikipedia editing for some reason. They keep putting back outdated information when the information I have entered is correct and up to date. My main antagonist is Trlovejoy.
Edited by :-
Welcomed with COI template, and seems to ignore clear connection between user name and articles edited. sats 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
about the company is no big deal despite having the COI tag on the page. sats 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This obviously won't apply in contentious cases, but when you are corresponding, on- or off- wiki, with article subjects who make good-faith edits, please consider asking them to contribute a short audio recoding of their spoken voice, as described at Wikipedia:Voice intro project (currently a holding page, linking to the project page on Commons). The template {{ Voice Intro Project invitation}} is also available for your convenience. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
User edited the article in question, apparently in good faith, to update the radio station's broadcast schedule. However, the article states that the radio station is owned by a company called Entercom Communications. Tckma ( talk) 18:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor has accused me of having a non-disclosed COI here and I mentioned that the right place for determining whether an editor has a COI is this board. The editor has not responded to my arguments about his adding content not directly supported by the source and has suggested that the article be reverted to his version on the basis of their COI accusations. He also continues to refer to my prior account name, even though they are aware I changed usernames to avoid personally identifiable information. Not sure where to go from there, but based on the tone, I figured it would escalate here quickly anyway. Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
24.95.76.248 claims to be Gary Cox [20] [21] [22], a lawyer and general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund ( http://farmtoconsumer.org), an organization that promotes raw milk and fringe theories about it.
His edits to date have been what you'd expect of a new editor that's a lawyer that defends promoters of fringe theories: violations of WP:V, WP:OR/SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. He likes to juxtapose information in a misleading way to promote the pov of the organizations he represents. He has a WP:BATTLE mentality, and has ignored comments to him about NPOV and COI beyond claiming he is unbiased. He doesn't have many edits yet, so the problems are obvious and blatant from my perspective. I can provide diffs if needed.
I always like to think that new editors can learn how to contribute in a positive manner, but he's off to a very bad start. A short block is probably warranted. How much trouble would it be to give him a (short?) ban from all relevant articles while still allowing him to contribute to the talk pages? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 68.173.190.124 ( talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC) In 2008 I purchased 50 % of a partnership (we shared same lawyer) 3 month later we inter a franchise agreement using same lawyer 2010 I used same layer to do a closing of another business 2010 also uses same lawyer for breaking a business partnership agreement using same lawyer In 2012 I had a fake lease under my name and the franchiser another sight by the same lawyer Know it been almost two years that I been with a different lawyer because the franchisor want to close my business down Back in 2008 my layer ( the one I thought it was my layer had me sign a consented staining I didn't want counsel) I just have a associated degree if I had known he wasn't my layer I was able to afford one At the time and won't be getting sue about to lose my bread and butter .
There has been repeated editing of the article by User:Stevefearn, as well as similar edits in the recent past by users such as User:Hartopj, User:KateCorradi and User:GinstersCornwall. A person called Steve Fearn identifies themselves on LinkedIn here as "Brand Engagement Manager at Ginsters", responsible for "Management and generation of digital strategies to drive online traffic to both company website and social media platforms; Developing and managing specific digital marketing campaigns; Tracking conversion rates and monitoring brand engagement levels across platforms; Overseeing the social media strategy promoting continuity across wider comms/CRM strategy; Managing online brand campaigns to raise brand awareness; Responsibility for planning and budgetary control of all digital marketing activity; Evaluating customer research, market conditions and competitor data; Review new technologies and keep the company at the forefront of developments in digital marketing..." User:Stevefearn has been warned for apparent COI, with no response. Any advice? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
AP writer Charles Hanley's behavior at the No Gun Ri Massacre article needs to be addressed. Hanley's work on this subject has been the subject to fair degree of criticism (for reasons I need not mention here) by other writers and historians. Hanley is currently is editing the article under username Cjhanley (a fact he freely admits) and refuses to have material introduced into the article regardless if it meets sourcing requirements WP:V, WP:RS if it does not conform to the reporting he did on the subject. It seems he has a particular animus towards Westpoint historian LtCol Robert Bateman whose book and writings on this subject Hanley wont entertain inclusion of. WeldNeck ( talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Late last year, Hanley wrote a nine-page letter to Stackpole Books, the Pennsylvania publisher bringing out Bateman's book this month, saying it would be a "grave mistake" to publish Bateman's "diatribes and defamations." A copy of the letter, filled with personal attacks against the author, was made available to The Chronicle. The letter is the kind of dark threat that gives free speech experts the chills -- "an effort at prior restraint," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists -- not to mention the fact that in this case, there is a certain reversal of roles. "It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person," said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. "The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable."
WeldNeck ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to bring to the attention of the community User:Setomorp, who personal information removed by Andrew 327. This user created an article on behalf of Christy Lee Rogers, a church member. When I started the AfD for this article and stated that there was a potential conflict of interest on the part of Setomorp and that it is possible the article is a vanity article, I was shot down by others who ignored the fact that there are barely any secondary or tertiary sources that meet our standards of reliability and verifiability. Anyone who bothered to do a search would discover that the few articles appearing in magazines such as Vanity Fair and Bazaar did not contain any verifiable data, indeed containing at most a blurb as virtually all the articles are image-heavy with little to no informative text, and a couple of interviews which also do not provide any verifiable details or data regarding the subject. The rest are all literally blogs. Considering the standard set by WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, as I have stated on the article's talk, the article will remain at best a stub, and at worst, will eventually become an out-and-out advertorial. The fact that Setomorp, who undoubtedly is an employee of the aforementioned Scientologist-run PR firm in the UK, there is a definite conflict of interest on the part of this user who should, out of respect for community policies, refrain from further involvement in that article as well as refraining from starting any new articles for Scientologists.
While I consider the article to be a rather pointless exercise, since there is no verifiable date of birth for the artist, no verifiable place of birth, no verifiable record of education or employment or how they produce the photography, etc and taking into account the fact that every single source, whether in print or on the Web, uses statements, claims, and assertions directly from the subject herself, as there are not even any external sources, I really have no opinion as it seems AfD's lately are a hell of a lot more lenient and inclusionary compared to the more stringent standards upheld in years past. But it is disturbing that yet another PR firm connected to Scientology is shamelessly taking advantage of Wikipedia for promotional ends. The edits of User:Setomorp do not show any attempt at upholding guidelines and policy, but rather promoting advertorial-style copy. A similar situation apparently had occurred on the page of Grant Cardone, who for quite some time had a Wikipedia article that was nothing more than pure advertorial promotion. As with the articles of a number of low level Scientologist notables, Cardone's article cannot be improved very much since there are very few reliable, verifiable secondary and tertiary sources -- most of the article is forced to use Cardone himself as the paramount source.
Taking into consideration the conflicts and melodrama that surrounded Scientology's official involvement in editing Wikipedia, I urge the community to not take these issues lightly and if possible, for the community to take a stronger line against the editing of articles by paid PR writers. Thank you, Laval ( talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The behaviour and a technical aspect of 141.0.153.217 (it has not been CheckUsered) effectively confirms that the subject has been cleansing his own entry. Among other things, this edit - with a totally disingenuous edit summary - removed mention from the lead that the company the subject operates was issued with a court order to enforce the repayment of debts, and removed mention of him having lost his previous employer, The Telegraph, a significant amount of money. That was after it was editorialised in this edit by a German IP address, which also inserted promotional-y testimonials in the lead section and also uses exactly the same elaborate/prosaic style of edit summary.
I actually created this article, but I feel that a conflict of interest - I write for the The Telegraph - prevents me from intervening in the way that is necessary: obviously the editing of one's own Wikipedia article is allowed, but edits like these and the spreading of scrutiny to make them is not, and on that basis, the reference to him losing The Telegraph a lot of money should be restored. WilliamH ( talk) 06:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Although this user has declared a Conflict of Interest, she has consistently ignored the advice of other editors on her talk page to stop directly editing articles with which she has such a conflict of interest. She continues to edit the page of her employer as well as those related to her work there. This is in direct violation of the Conflict of Interest policy. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 07:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Paid advocates: If you have an ethical responsibility to edit Wikipedia to advance your client or employer's interests, then you stand in a clear conflict of interest and should not edit articles directly, even with disclosure. You may be professionally obligated to advance goals that conflict with neutrality and Wikipedia's mission. This includes lawyers, public relations representatives, corporate communicators, marketers, and others in similar positions. This kind of engagement is very controversial and often results in community and broader media backlash if discovered.
This appears to be the author in question. Ealexander3 has made additional edits without responding to my query. Ealexander3 has also edited Eben Alexander, the great-grandfather of Eben Alexander (author).
Various red flags: no contributions to any other pages, addition of unsourced information, "Dr. Alexander's extraordinary experience..." [25], and regarding the writer who criticized Alexander's book in Esquire, "...Luke Dittrich and Esquire had committed journalistic malpractice through their blatant disregard for pursuing and conveying facts about Proof of Heaven and Dr. Eben Alexander." [26] Vzaak ( talk)
Posting same issue as was at UAA. This user has a single-use account and refuses (semi-)friendly attempts to resolve issues and has received a myriad of warnings with no nothing backing it up. Further, I view some of the comments on my talk page as veiled personal attacks, such as the question on my editing abilities and the claim that I was "leveling accusations" without checking my facts. I have been thorough in this investigation. For this reason, this is the final noticeboard that I am posting at to avoid the appearance of harassment. Jackson Peebles ( talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The IP 74.66.235.121 is repeatedly deleting the entire content of my edits even though I am citing independent sources.
There is no explanation why my edits are being deleted and my calls for discussion on the talk page are not answered.
This organization has a problematic history and the fact is that it has been left by the majority of its member families last September including the founder families following a prolonged conflict during which falsified documents surfaced as well as numerous disregards of the non for profit law and IRS guidelines for non for profit 501c3 organizations. I believe that this IP is closely connected to the current leadership which is trying to "delete" the problems from the organization history using Wikipedia for their own interests.
There are false and self promoting statements in the article as well: Neli Hadjiyska is not an educator (she's been selling airplane tickets for a tourist agency for the last 15+ years) and was not the founder of the school. These facts are well known by the Bulgarian community in New York.
All I am trying to do is add information to the article so neutrality is achieved.
I believe this IP should be asked to disclose his/her interest in the organization.
I also believe he/she is operating form two different IPs. The second one is 71.249.192.199
The same editor 74.66.235.121 created also the Bulgarian version of the article and is also trying to protect his/her version of the article in the same aggressive way deleting any edits that are not in sync with the false story they are creating.
Please look into this matter as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Star Gazer 13 (
talk)
22:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Star Gazer 13
On Commons, User:Rimbaud22ca has identified himself as Adrian du Plessis, manager of Allison Crowe. he also states that he is User:Adrian22 here, an editor who has been heavily involved with editing Allison Crowe. Perhaps someone can de-puff the article and remove some of the many unnecessary images? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Userpage text appears self-promotional. Tckma ( talk) 18:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
New editor with COI (Coi declared here) started to edit Tekhsnabexport and probably needs some assistance. I see the current edits somehow problematic. Beagel ( talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been relentlessly accused of having a COI with respect to the suite of agricultural biotechnology articles, and I am sick of it. I wish to confidentially reveal my identity and professional work, and have COIN rule on whether I have a COI. Jytdog ( talk) 20:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Just dropping here a quick note to say that I have been in contact with Jytdog, and I am confident that he does not have a conflict of interest with respect to GMOs, or GMO food controversies, or other such things. I will likely provide a more detailed statement soon. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines a conflict of interest in the following manner: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The guideline goes on to describe in more detail various types of conflicts of interest.
In a nutshell, Jytdog ( talk · contribs) does not have a conflict of interest. To my knowledge, based on both Jytdog's email to me, and information I found elsewhere, he does not have any financial motive to promote the safety of genetically modified organisms.
While it is true that some researchers within Jytdog's university system receive public and private funding for GMO research and dissemination, and the university system may profit from the resulting technology, the campus where Jytdog works does not perform agricultural research or hold agricultural patents. Jytdog's day to day work has nothing to do with agricultural biotechnology, and he receives no financial benefit from public acceptance of GMOs.
I don't know if some editors feel that university students and employees may have a conflict of interest regarding technologies that may profit the university, but I do not. Your typical university has hundreds or thousands of scientists conducting research on a myriad of subjects. For a sufficiently large university, such a viewpoint would declare that every student and employee has a conflict of interest in nearly every technological subject, even though most obtain no financial or otherwise personal benefit from the research.
I sincerely believe, based on the information provided to me, that Jytdog is not motivated by personal gain or anything else that may be defined by Wikipedia as a conflict of interest. The same general theme here also goes for a13ean ( talk · contribs), who also emailed me with his personal information.
For full disclosure, for about a year I held a job as a technician with a group that developed genetically modified organisms. I have not held that job now for years. I gain no financial benefit from their continued work, and I have no desire to return to that group when I graduate. I am currently a graduate student at a University where research into GMOs is conducted, but my own work does not touch the subject, no one in my lab studies GMOs, and I gain no personal benefit from the work conducted by those scientists who do. Someguy1221 ( talk) 00:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Move to mark as resolved. I have read through this, and it seems as though a mutual agreement has been made. If I may throw in my two cents (even though I'm moving to close this), one is innocent until proven guilty on Wikipedia, as we
assume good faith (bla, bla, bla, I know you all know this, but still). It's totally inappropriate to have to prove yourself unless their is substantial evidence to the contrary. --
Jackson Peebles (
talk)
10:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Gh26 has a personal/mentoring relationship with Jill Purce and created the article Jill Purce. Gh26 has also been involved with editing the article of Purce's husband Rupert Sheldrake, who according to Purce "thinks that mantras and rituals work through morphic resonance" [28], " morphic resonance" being a redirect for Rupert Sheldrake.
If the COI is already enough then going into Gh26's problems at Rupert Sheldrake would be overkill. Otherwise here are a couple examples:
Vzaak ( talk) 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The general test for WP:SPA is "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." I would argue that because I have been careful to allow the mainstream view to remain in place but have been making a case for the marginal view to be represented makes the case that I am, as much as one can reasonably be, neutral. I also felt that I would be of better service as an editor focusing on topics that I know about rather than spreading myself thin over topics that I know less about. Gh26 ( talk) 13:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Gh26 ( talk · contribs), this is the conflict of interest noticeboard - this may seem obvious but it's for discussing conflicts of interest. You've already proven yourself more than capapble of discussing the Rupert Sheldrake article at talk:Rupert Sheldrake. That is not really important here. If you want to contribute here, can you acknowledge your conflict of interest and explain how you still think you can constructively contribute to the article in an unbiased manner? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 23:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said above quoting the COI guideline, I argue that I do not have a conflict of interest, because I have only tried to make a page more neutral, rather than less neutral. If I was getting constantly engaged in edit wars to banish the mainstream view and promote the marginal, so that the marginal view becomes all that people see then I would have a conflict of interest. However, I have not done this. I have engaged in discussion on the talk page, rather than getting involved in edit wars, and my concern has been to make the page more neutral. Therefore I do not feel I have any conflict of interest to declare. You think I am biased and I think you are biased; this is an unresolved dispute, not a case of COI. By getting rid of me, you remove an opponent who is able to argue against your edits. Wanting to eliminating opponents when they argue against your large numbers of edits on the talk page, but when they make a minimal number of edits in comparison with you raises suspicion. Gh26 ( talk) 08: 28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
In answer to your point on COI, "researched" is correct. My music PhD thesis is a psychological/anthropological study of chant and led me to discover and research the work of Purce online, followed by research interviews. It was purely a matter of coincidence that this led me to the work of Sheldrake, as his ideas on social behaviour were relevant to my research on group psychology. There is no link between their work and most people don't even know they are together. Your sample, where Purce quotes Sheldrake, was merely because someone specifically asked her about him in an interview, if there was any connection between their work - her brief response must have been the best she could find by way of an answer, as her work has nothing to do with his. Gh26 ( talk) 17:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I will privately send details to an administrator that directly show the personal/mentoring relationship, the reason for this COI notice. There are many issues on display here, but to summarize the main ones are Gh26's:
Vzaak ( talk) 18:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There was no COI while creating Purce article, research into Purce's work led to research interviews as described, then to Purce article.
No dissembling - just repeatedly describing the situation as it is.
No COI edits".
All policies read and understood.
No attacks just defending.
As described above, a) research into Purce on the voice, led to b) Purce mentioning Sheldrake's work on psychology of groups which led to c) interest in and then research into Sheldrakes work which led to d) comments on talk page and very few edits to Sheldrake's article.
Gh26 ( talk) 00:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)