![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User was creating an article about themself. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 09:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Louise Blouin Media appears to have been created by someone using a username similar to the real-world name of an employee of that company, and to have been subsequently edited by at least three other editors with usernames very similar to the real-world names of other employees of the company, who of course may or may not actually be those employees. The edit histories of two of them also include massive and systematic additions or modifications of external links to the website(s) of the same company in many articles here. I have left {{ Uw-coi}} notices on their talkpages. Can the problems arising from this all be dealt with here? If not, who else should be notified? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
GabrielF discounted my requests to have my name added to the list of alumni of the Bronx High School of Science by sending me this note after my third or fourth request: "Why don't you post your request at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? GabrielF (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" So that's what I am doing.
I graduated BX Science in 1976. There are already many of my classmates and about 70 more alumni listed. Although some (8) are Nobel Laureates, some only have such notable qualifications as "biologist", "Conservative Rabbi", "ecologist", "Professional ballroom dancer", "Professor", "owner of a printing company", and then there's the former runner up in a beauty pageant. If we forget everything else that I did - forget the acting, which should be good enough since I have been in "multiple notable films, television shows, & other productions" as can be verified on IMDb here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4582170/ and elsewhere with minimum searching; forget the authoring, which should be good enough since I have had 10 or more blogs and articles on 12 Step Recovery on InTheRooms.com: http://bamrubenstein.caimanhunter.com/published015_itr_02.html, http://na-blog.com, and have spoken at numerous NA conventions as the keynote speaker, some of my MP3s are listed here: http://bamrubenstein.caimanhunter.com/speakertapes.html; the over 2 years of monthly columns in Biker Living magazine; and forget all the other accolades that I've received, such as attaining the rank of Chief of a fire department, being a crew chief in the US Air Force Fire Department, being the Commander of a medical standby company, and having attained the certifications and degrees as a fire science instructor, HazMat tech and Science Officer and guest instructor at TEEX Fire Science Training School at Texas A&M University.
Forgetting all of those, I believe I rank among notable alumni of Bronx Science due to one undeniable thing that I've accomplished - which meets all of your criteria - and that is my work with caiman. You might not know what they are and you might not think that they or it's a big deal, but caiman are one of only 23 different types of crocodilians, they are the third nastiest of all crocodilians and caiman have been on the endangered species list in the past and are still on the protected watch list. I was called "the US' #1 authority on Caiman" by Reptile Channel. Reptiles magazine called me an "Expert in my Field" and had me do an article on caiman for them - the article can be found here: http://caimanhunter.com/expert.html; Reptile Radio interviewed me and did a one hour show focused on my and my work with caiman, which can be found here: http://caimanhunter.com/images/videos/reptileradioshowwbam.mp3; I was asked to do my own 1/2 hour weekly blogtalkradio listener call-in show on caiman called, "Live with the CaimanHunter" - archives of past shows can be found here: http://my.blogtalkradio.com/bam-the-caimanhunter; my rescue operation was seen on Fox7 News and I was interviewed by Nancy Zambrano - the piece that aired can be seen here: http://caimanhunter.com/images/videos/thrallcaimannews.mpg; I have gotten calls from Texas Fish and Wildlife to capture loose caiman; and I have a web site dedicated to caiman that is extensively used as a resource by Bayou Beasts, ZooKeepers, and other reputable reptile rescues. My work with caiman, alone, should get me on the alumni list, if not a page on Wikipedia all to myself.
GabrielF thought that I should come here since, for some unknown reason, she kept turning my requests down. The first time she wrote: "I will not add your name to the list of alumni of The Bronx High School of Science. Our policy on lists of alumni can be found at WP:ALUMNI. In order for an individual to be considered notable, we require that that person be covered by multiple, reliable secondary sources, for instance, newspaper or magazine articles. We do not consider IMDB or an Amazon authors page to be reliable sources as they can be written by the article subject and there is no editorial review. GabrielF (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)" But even though IMDb articles may be written by the subjects, checking their stats against the movies pages themselves or doing any number of other searches should remove that obstacle, as well as the fact the IMDb does background checks before they will let you say you were in a movie.
The second time she wrote: "Respectfully, I am certain from the links that you have provided that you have lived a rich and fulfilling life. However, I do not believe that you would meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. You've presented some articles that you've written and some places in which you've been quoted. Some of this is relevant, some of it is not. For instance, I could not find your name in the Austin American Statesman article. And we do not accept IMDB as a reliable source for reasons that I described above. What's left are a couple of articles that you've written, which we would not consider evidence of notability as they are not independent of you as a source, and a couple of local or specialized publications where you've been interviewed or quoted. All of this is commendable, but I do not believe it meets the notability criteria in terms of depth of coverage. Consider that the alumni list includes eight Nobel laureates. I have no conflicts of interest regarding anything that you've been involved with. If you would like another editor to look at this issue, I would recommend posting at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/noticeboard. GabrielF (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)" If some is relevant, and that covers the minimum requirements, what's the problem?
And finally she wrote, "Why don't you post your request at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? GabrielF (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" So I am.
Thank you, Lee Bam "CaimanHunter" Rubenstein Bx Science class of 1976 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRubens ( talk • contribs)
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.
Sexycristina As far as the talkpage mentions is that the current user violated the Wikipedia's conflict of interest rule by using above as a username. He/she didn't made a single edit, but her userpage was deleted, but the talkpage remained. What should we as a community do?-- Mishae ( talk) 04:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Sovtek The current user is apparently using a Russian company name (see above).-- Mishae ( talk) 04:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Aveda The current user is apparently using his or her user name for a promotional reason. See the top for clarification.-- Mishae ( talk) 05:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Brooklyn riot This user apparently promotes the music group, see the userpage for more info.-- Mishae ( talk) 05:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Riddick7 This user uses a brand name of a video game. Conflict of interest?-- Mishae ( talk) 05:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Ultra Games This user is using Australian Ultra Games as his user name, a clear username violation here!-- Mishae ( talk) 05:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Agentia imobiliara Inter-Med Sibiu Uses the name of a foreign agency.-- Mishae ( talk) 05:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Editor keeps re-inserting a very, very fluffy list of "notables". The COI is obvious from their user page, which contains this rather unacceptable message: "I work at McMurry University. Unless you an official of McMurry University, do not undo my edits." They're persistent and they're just asking for a block for COI and OWNership, not to mention plugging their employer, which is what their (non-MOS compliant) version of the "notables" list is doing. Drmies ( talk) 18:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Martin raul campos has created extensively edited the above articles, on Perez, "an American author and entrepreneur" and his book The Speed Traders, together with the recently-deleted
Knightmare On Wall Street (book) (see AfD
[1]), and appears to be unconcerned with the promotional tone of the material, despite being informed of policy and guidelines (see for example his deletion of notability and advertisement tags here:
[2]). I have also repeatedly drawn the attention of Martin raul campos to
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy, but had no satisfactory response. Given his editing behaviour, it seems entirely reasonable to me at least to assume that there is indeed a conflict of interest. I would therefore ask for comment by other editors/admins as to what might be the best course of action to deal with this issue.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks for your help.
I have no relationship with Edgar Perez I just found his books particularly interesting and that's why I was editing them. I was trying to make it more neutral but unfortunately you erased the page. I understand all the guideline and policy of wikipedia so I respect what you've done. I'm just learning that's why I couldn't do it correctly. I think I'm going study and practice more before I move a new article.
Thanks for everything
Martin Campos
Martin raul campos (
talk)
15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of the company Accenture, looking to improve two articles here on Wikipedia: the article for Accenture itself, as well as that of the company's chairman & CEO, Pierre Nanterme. Since I have a financial COI here, I won't be making any edits myself; instead, I've proposed changes on Talk:Accenture and Talk:Pierre Nanterme, and have been trying to solicit help from volunteer editors to review the changes. However, it's been something of a struggle to find folks to help, despite posting in a number of locations, like Paid Editor Help, as well as reaching out to some editors individually. User:FeralOink was helping out at Accenture for a bit, but they seem to be busy now, and one of the remaining issues there is something I'd like another perspective on anyway. So, if someone here is willing to take a look and give me a hand here, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance! ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 18:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
User came to WT:MED asking for eyes on a deletion discussion (for Malafa). Entered vote, but upon looking at user page Noticed that all articles they created were physicians from Moffitt cancer center, seemed pretty thin on RS, and were rather obvious resumes. See also this deletion discussion. Articles spring apparently fully formed from this editor, without collaboration, AfC, or sandbox activity. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 18:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This Anastasia International article has had some really suspicious activity on it for the last 6-8 months. A major contributor was blocked for being a sockpuppet ( User:Entyre) and I'm currently in discussions that other users now editing the page might be sockpuppets of that user. However, on that discussion page, which you can see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alexis418, Alexis418 admitted that he used to work for the company, which for me means he has a Wikipedia:COI. Not only this, all the edits I make trying to improve the article and clarify the companies controversy, he is merely reverting. I personally don't think someone who could be a disgruntled ex employee should be editing this page, especially when all they are doing is reverting edits. Verdict78 ( talk) 10:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Still having problems with a disgruntled ex-employee on this page, could someone look into this and advise how to proceed please. Again, on the sockpuppet page (link above) Alexis418 said he'd worked for the company previously. In the last 10 days the user has reverted around 10 attempted improvements. During this 10 day period, he has made no effort to improve the article, merely explain briefly on the talk page why he doesn't think the change should take place. He constantly keeps repeating he knows a lot about the company but yet is to make a single improvement on the page during this period. It wouldn't surprise me if he sees this and does just that! To me its obvious (for whatever reason) this user is blocking any progression of this page, with no intention of making any changes. I hope someone can look into this sooner rather than later, because this is eating into my editing time considerably. Verdict78 ( talk) 22:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Verdict78 might consider doing more thorough research on the subject material, so that his edits would be accurate and stick. I've repeatedly suggested we try to come up with a clear common description of our common and different viewpoints so that we can solicit 3rd opinions where we differ. Reading the conflict of interest policy carefully, I do not have a conflict of interest. I do have a personal interest, but not a financial or otherwise conflictual one. If we don't allow people to edit areas where they have a personal interest, unfortunately we would also be disabling the editors who have the most knowledge about specific subjects. Any other editors who are interested to help with the Anastasia International article are welcome. I had previously asked for a 3rd opinion but the editor who came to help said we had not articulated our 2 positions well enough on the talk page to be ready for that yet. Alexis418 ( talk) 07:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You do have a conflict of interest and I quote - "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest." You've just admitted above to having a 'personal' interest in the outcome of the article. Not only this you also stated that you were previously an employee of the business on the sockpuppet discussion here. You are yet to make a single edit on the page, and are reverting every change I make. You also seem to 'become active' on the page the minute anyone seems to change the article dramatically as you can see on your history page. My personal opinion in dealing with you and viewing all this information is that for the last 6 months you have sat, reverting edits on a single page. You are a single use account, and have openly admitted to having a COI on TWO occasions now. Can someone please look into this so that myself and other real editors can get on with improving Wikipedia Verdict78 ( talk) 08:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
That is hilarious, Verdict78. I don't have an external relationship with Anastasia, none whatsoever. I did in the past and I acknowledged it, I have an interest just as many people with knowledge of topics have that knowledge related to their interest in the topic. I doubt you could say the same. Is it a coincidence that the chrunchbase page you just decided to reference was modified to say exactly what you wanted it to say in the past few days? 10 days ago it didn't say what it does now - http://web.archive.org/web/20130807215042/http://crunchbase.com/company/anastasia-web - you've had it changed, or changed it yourself, to support a fantasy that Anastasia's dark past was cut off from its present. Yes, there's a conflict of interest here - now how about you tell the truth and reveal it, because you are the one with the conflict of interest to whitewash the company's business practice. Who is paying you, and how much, to whitewash the Wikipedia page for Anastasia? Alexis418 ( talk) 08:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Deflecting the investigation to me - nice work! Funny you say that you don't have an external relationship with Anastasia, even though you say on two occasions that you do? Rather than wasting my time arguing with you, I think I'll let others decide who is in the wrong. Verdict78 ( talk) 10:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As I have said in the past, I have a PAST employment relationship with the company and at present only an INTEREST but not an external or material interest. Perhaps you should go back and do what I have suggested 5x to you, you should actually READ the references that you keep deleting, instead of creating fake references of your own on the internet - and after you have READ the references, then we can together come up with a common statement of our different opinions of what are the relevant sources and then ask for 3rd party suppert. You are like your president Obama whose strategy in every election has been disqualifying in one way or another and trying to befriend the media and police, rather than making a valid case. Meanwhile, the question remains, why were YOU so INTERESTED in Anastasia that you went out of your way to EDIT an EXTERNAL PAGE in order to support your case that was not based on any publicly available information, Verdict??? You're right, something STINKS in the article, and it's Your Side that is "Interested". I reread your comments on another page and you are talking about MALTA and say "It's not a corporate office"... Well I found at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10740233.htm that MARK BROOKS is currently CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER of ANASTASIA -> http://www.meetup.com/Expats-Malta/members/12174821/ and is in MALTA. I also noticed that you love to post links to Mark Brooks Blog http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/markbrooks/mediterranean/ ?? and that an editor Mcbrooks has editied Anastasia article? But maybe he prefer to IP edit from MALTA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/McBrooks is deleted and that's fine because I prefer to focus now on the subject material, not so much obsess about other editors. Do you work for McBrooks, is that why you have edited an external page in order to fill out a story to make it something Mark Brooks would approve of? Just wondering but since you bring this subject up in the COI page let's all be honest now. Alexis418 ( talk) 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It's even more interesting than this. I have taken a look at Graham Philips (supposed sockmaster, if I'm not mistaken Verdict78 is even trying to accuse me of being his sockpuppet.) and Mcbrooks more closely. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mcbrooks - this sockpuppet investigation was "deleted" by Rschen7754 on April 19 at 4:58. Then a few hours later, Rschen7754 closed the "GrahamPhilips" sockpuppet "investigation": http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FGrahamWPhillips&diff=560581229&oldid=560579468 - With a $100 million budget, it's likely that this company convinced Rschen7754 to do both these things to ban all editors who disagreed with them. Maybe it was a coincidence and Rschen7754 was just cleaning out the sockpuppet page that day. I'll ask Rschen7754 to comment whether or not anyone contacted him/her with a request to act on these 2 "investigations". Alexis418 ( talk) 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The contents of the Video Unlimited Wikipedia are wrong, particularly the countries that Video Unlimited is listed as being available in. We've submitted corrected copy on the Talk page for that entry but we're hoping to expedite the issue by flagging it here.
Here's the page's current copy:
The service includes films from several major studios, including Sony's own studio; Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Fox Home Entertainment, Lionsgate Home Entertainment, MGM Home Entertainment, NBCUniversal (Universal Studios), Paramount Home Entertainment, Walt Disney Home Entertainment, Warner Home Video, 2 entertain, BBC and RTÉ. It can be accessed through Sony Blu-ray players, personal computers, the PlayStation 3, Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc, BRAVIA televisions and some portable music players.[1] It has been announced that the PlayStation 4 will also be able to stream content from VU on launch day. It became available in the United States of America in June 2010, on the night of Sonys E3 2010 announcement it launched Canada, in July 2010. It launched in the United Kingdom and Ireland in September 2010 and in China, Hong Kong and Japan on 26 January 2011. It launched in all European union countries including Scandinavia (except in Finland), Greece, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal in June 2011 (originally scheduled for November 2010). It launched in Australasia in July 2011. On 2 November 2012, it also became available in South Korea.
Here's our requested edits, which just deal with factual inaccuracies:
The service includes TV episodes and new release films as well as a wide variety of favorites, classics and local language movies from all major studios, including Sony's own studio; Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, and Warner Bros, as well as many small and independent studios. It can be accessed through Sony Blu-ray players, personal computers, the PlayStation 3, Sony Xperia smartphones and tablets , BRAVIA televisions and some portable music players.[1] It has been announced that the PlayStation 4 will also be able to stream content from VU on launch day.
It became available in the United States of America in February 2010 in the United States and expanded to the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain in November 2010. The service later launched in Japan, in January, 2011, Canada in February, 2011 and Australia in June 2011
Help here would be appreciated since we want to make sure to respect the Wikipedia community and the process for making changes. User:Gbelloni ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
National Museum of Patriotism, about a formerly physical, now virtual museum, has recently been expanded with some overtly self-interested edits [5], including some content expressly credited to the director of the museum. Some of these changes strike me as sufficiently-sourced improvements, other changes may be viewed as excessive and not NPOV. And some of the content sounds like it may have come directly from museum literature, although I haven't yet spotted any clear copying. Attention from some COI-experienced editors would be beneficial. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear board, I'm seeking some advice on the above mentioned article. It is about a highly controversial and very recent topic (part of the article has not yet taken place). In my view, Wikipedia is being used for Campaigning as described in WP:COI. This article is used in the following website [6] as campaigning material to promote certain political views by a group of editors. I cannot however prove that these editors are directly involved in the webpage mentioned. In my opinion, this article does not follow Wikipedia's policy as it shows a tendentious approach WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV Arcillaroja ( talk) 14:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The organizers said there will be more than 200 journalists accredited in the Catalan Way, more than last year. Therefore, it will be again in the international focus and it's important to have a complete article. -- Davidpar ( talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Editor appears to be promoting his company, although he's made good previous contributions so unsure as to why he'd decide to promote suddenly, Also I've pointed him to COI, Thanks →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 02:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Despite0 a pledge on his user page regarding conflict of interests when it comes to articles relating to transsexualism, a arbitration case involving said COIs, and his well-known professional affiliations with Ray Blanchard, it appears that Dr. Cantor is still editing in areas he, by his own admission, shouldn't. This diff, in particular, is rather disconcerting; it's directly in his userpage pledge, and he seems to be violating the spirit of WP:CLAIM. I haven't looked into the edits to the GID article too closely, but he seems to be removing citations under SPS; while often permissible, the fact that one of the people removed was explicitly thanked in IJT for her work on the issue ( doi: 10.1080/15532739.2010.509201) is also rather concerning. Sceptre ( talk) 13:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Nickpopoff ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
Despite several warnings, user is a single purpose account whose edits only concern Peter Popoff. Given the username, the claims of intimate knowledge of the Popoff family ( diff and diff), and the user's page content, the conflict of interest is quite clear. DKqwerty ( talk) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi – I have posted on the talk page of the article for Matthew Bryden, who is my client. I work for Bell Pottinger, a PR firm – see my user page for more info. Many thanks. HOgilvy ( talk) 17:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I have now become well-read on it enough to speak somewhat intelligently on the article. I've posted a break on the article's Talk page here regarding the WP:ONEEVENT issue and I think the BLP board would have to sort that out before anything that is relevant for COIN. I have not found any secondary sources where he is the subject of the article, only articles that cover political events and criticize his involvement in them, but this is only regarding 4 years of his life where he held a controversial role. I am leaning towards it being a good candidate for deletion under ONEEVENT. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Midday and I have reached an impasse, mostly regarding the use of a press release and op-eds written by Bryden's political opposition to add controversial information. I've attempted to summarize the issues here and asked Drmies to get involved so we could have more than two editors and maybe figure things out. More eyes would certainly be welcome as well. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Mediababy is a WP:SPA (or dual-purpose account) which has only ever edited pages related to David Lloyd (musician) and his band Uropa Lula. Andreasegde has a much more varied history, but has edited both those pages, and also the page on Andrew Edge, who was a member of Uropa Lula with David Lloyd. COI seems clear in both cases. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Continuation of previously reported Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_64#RyLaughlin
Hello,
My name is Barry and I work for DPR Construction. I noticed that we’re not here, but I think our projects are on par with the others that are currently available. I hope you agree. In any case, I created a sandbox for your consideration and would really appreciate your feedback (
LINK TO SANDBOX). As it is our first attempt, we recognize it will likely need changes. The entry cites independent sources in an effort to verify the content and establish that DPR is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this and provide feedback.
Sincerely,
Barry — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bucktown1980 (
talk •
contribs)
08:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's much doubt about this in view of the username and edit history. It is however not 100% a WP:SPA. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Continuation of previously reported Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_64#RyLaughlin
Hello,
My name is Barry and I work for DPR Construction. I noticed that we’re not here, but I think our projects are on par with the others that are currently available. I hope you agree. In any case, I created a sandbox for your consideration and would really appreciate your feedback (
LINK TO SANDBOX). As it is our first attempt, we recognize it will likely need changes. The entry cites independent sources in an effort to verify the content and establish that DPR is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this and provide feedback.
Sincerely,
Barry — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bucktown1980 (
talk •
contribs)
08:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's much doubt about this in view of the username and edit history. It is however not 100% a WP:SPA. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to register my conflict of interest with regard to the creation of an article on Yassmin Ghandehari, a client of mine who is a designer and philanthropist. If you have any questions then do contact me on my talk page. Thanks Vivj2012 ( talk) 15:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This IP user has exclusively made spam edits promoting the website "sentuamsg.com". There are zero (0) constructive edits by this editor since the dawn of time. Diffs: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] -- benlisquare T• C• E 18:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This user:
Creator of these articles:
by his own admission (at some point was editing his own (now deleted) self-biographical article) is Oscar del Santo [26].
He has created a number of articles in the same line, regarding mostly professors of a few institutions (see above). These professors/researchers, in most cases do not meet the criteria for notability (if every reasearcher with 40 publication deserves a wikipedia article, there should be tens of thousands of placeholder biographies that would not give any information that is not available in their published CV's on their personal pages). Moreover, the links in the above articles (only the biographical ones, the other are institutions, and as such deserve their articles) only point to self-created materials such as pages in their own institutions, or their own research articles.
I understand wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion or in order to achieve more notability. There are clear hints that this editor has clear ties to the institutions and professors whose articles he is editing, and all of them should be reviewed. It is probably also a case of WP:NOPR WP:NOPAY.
While I do not know personally any of the professors involved or the editor, I am reporting this anonymously. Spain is a "small" country. -- 84.120.179.232 ( talk) 19:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Jeff Rudd, who is the Louth Chairman of the DDI organization[] and has identified as so on his user page has over the last number of weeks carried out a large number of disruptive edits on the DDI wikipage including the removal of sourced materials, inclusion of other unsourced and POV material, inclusion of material which he claims are sourced but when the source is checked it is found not to contain what he alleges etc. He has also posted on his personal website attacking editors of Wikipedia - this coincided with the appearance of another disruptive editor JohnRo76 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has also engaged in this behavior. This occurred after Jeff Rudd put out a call for people to engage in an edit war on the site, see[ here] CommieMark ( talk) 17:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Direct Democracy Ireland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I, Jeff Rudd, have asked that the management of Wikipedia to stop anonymous editors of its service, to post ALLEGATIONS up as supposed facts. I have removed at times references that were WRONGLY stated that they were facts (thus proven) when in fact there were just ALLEGATIONS (and NOT proven).
It should be also noted that is ironic that anon' editors are allowed to post inaccurate items up - while those that actually are in such an org and know the truth - in some cases, having been there - that they cannot be allowed to edit and post the truth - with their real name attached and thus stand on public record by what they state.
Wikipedia is currently being edited wrongly and deliberately by people from a political party called Sinn Fein. We know its them, we know were its coming from, we know a lot more. we are willing and will if necessary, post more information about them.
I have argued against ANON editors - ANON' editors - to this page. If people wish to post up items to the DDI page, tell them to stop being cowardly and identify themselves if their facts are supposedly true! ...But no, ANON editors are allowed post inaccurate ALLEGATIONS - not proven facts - and pass them off in reference as supposed then truth facts proved, when they are not and no evidence exists that they have been proven true.
For example, on the site in contention, its stated that DDI is of Freeman nature. This is a complete and utter lie. I have repeatedly asked for this to be proven. Sinn Fein advocates (political opposition) have anon' posted ALLEGATIONS of this as referenced - not posted EVER, actual real proof.
Again I state for the record:
...Yet a political person we know from another party, is allowed anon' to post that we are of wacky Freeman origin - and ONLY reference ALLEGATIONS, many which their own party has actually put out to try besmirch the name of our growing popular organisation! They continuously reference their own allegations submitted into their own paper tabloids produced from their own offices in Dublin, Ireland!
Does anyone here understand the difference between ALLEGATIONS and PROOF? Allegations are NOT proof - they are just crap made up many a time as tried to be passed as proof. As in the case of Wikipedia and Sinn Fein people posting ALLEGATIONS, they are continuously referencing them into Wikipedia as supposed PROOF - then they are not Proof but just ALLEGATIONS!
I have done edits over the last few days - indeed a WIKI moderator (Jreferee) elsewhere has acknowledged already that I have only joined a few days ago - that don't stop others out there however from continuing again to spread lies. The digital dates attached to my edits will be on record for Wiki management to examine at any time of their choosing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Rudd ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Now I am stating FOR THE RECORD AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO THE FOLLOWING: the statement publically made at my personal site at: theruddsite dot com
I publically stand by what I say. I am a public face and Louth chairman of DDI. A position I have been democratically and legally elected to. It (at the very least) should be allowed to be posted that a representative of the organisation, has gone on public record to refute the ALLEGATIONS made - especially the ones made on this site by cowardly always anonymous people from another organisation.
I will continue to state this in the forth coming local and national elections here in Ireland and I will continue to highlight the total wrong inaccuracies in the Wikipedia service allowed be entered by anonymous people from another organisation - one thats highly under question within our own island borders, one that has a very history of killing people over decades including many, many British, Irish and international people.
I repeat:
We have repeatedly asked these people to produce evidence - not allegations, EVIDENCE - they have ALL so far been not able to show anywhere in our constitution, etc anything that is related to either.
I request that the always anonymous posters provide PROOF - do they understand that word? I don't think they want to for good reason. - I request PROOF - NOT ALLEGATIONS just more referenced and tried to be passed as concrete proof - that DDI is of Freeman basis.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN DDI WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT STRANGE, OUT OF FATE THINKING!
Its requested by myself and my organisation that the ALLEGATION stated be removed from the summary box on the right side of the DDI page - that we are of Freeman ideology. It has not been proven and cannot be - its simply is false and there is no proof out there or posted up referenced as verified proof by ANY independent body.
WE ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT - NOR DO WE WANT TO BE!
Please note also:
ONE person might have links to Freeman thinking - the rest of the other 4,000 plus members and fans do not. ONE person does not automatically make a whole organisation what they are. We have Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and other ideologies and faiths in our organisation - in fact more so in numbers than ONE person what MIGHT be of Freeman thinking.
The statement on the Direct Democracy Ireland page where it states "A number of publications and commentators have highlighted DDI's close links to the Freemen on the land movement and the Christian Solidarity Party" is incorrect. The statement on Wiki of what they allege is incorrect, they allege that ONE person is connect to the daft Freeman stuff - not the org! It is not - there might be one person who is - that that like many others, does not taint the organisation and its many thousands of others, right away.
For the record, there is NO material proof that all the rest of the people in it are of Freeman thinking - there might be material that one person might be - but not all the rest. I ask that the statement on the DDI page be adjusted correctly even along the line of "One of the members has been associated with... - while no verified proof exists that shows the rest are of the same ideology"
If a member tomorrow is associated with a party called "The Monster Raving Looney Party" - does that automatically make the rest of us one too? I don't think so - and I don't think anyone with any sense would think so too! ...However one person (anon' editor) and one org behind them is trying so far successfully espouse that this should be the case. This is absolute nuts, a lie and one posted with a political agenda behind it!
Jeff Rudd ( talk) 11:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I. Jeff Rudd do have no conflict of interest against the aims of Wikipedia. In fact in trying to improve its accuracy and further its aims, I have because of the organisation I'm a Chairman in, edited items directly related to my own organisation. How is this a conflict of interests? I'm trying to advance the interest of most of us here - to have the truth broadcast in the media. I am connected to the matter in hand - there is no debate about that - but conflict of interest? Against what else? I am trying to address the lies perpetuated by anon' names and by a front for a world recognised terrorist organisation that is doing it! This matter must be addressed or else sadly Wikipedia is going to stand worldwide as severely incorrect. Jeff Rudd ( talk) 15:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Its ironic that I stand accused of conflict of interests when one anon' CommieMark is breaking the COI rules. The rule he is breaking is on the page linked to above - namely: Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. The anon' editor is an element/supporter of Sinn Fein, a front for an Irish terror organisation known as the IRA - He is constantly altering the data about other political parties that are peacefully opposing his own - that includes Direct Democracy Ireland. All anyone has to do is look that the serious number of edits he does for a number of websites including very regular, his political parties newspaper "An Phoblacht" and other related sites that try to publish information related to other atrocities. These people are know to us as they are known to the Irish Gardi (police) and other countries police as well as investigation departments as home in Ireland, England and elsewhere. He even uses a well known expression on his personal Wiki page "Tiocfaidh Ár Lá" that is TOTALLY connected and used ONLY by the Sinn Fein and IRA organisation. Google it as an image as well as text format. See: sinnfeinbookshop dot com/tiocfaidh-ar-la/ See: img854.imageshack dot us/img854/2468/v7cy.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Rudd ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
This is without question. It can be simply goggled and the facts are there in the hundreds to view. User Commiemark is in conflict of interests as laid used without question, under your current guidelines. Again: namely: "Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors."
I state this knowing that I am putting my life at very risk via other people/supporters out in the real world - and should anything happen to me now or in the future, I wish Wikipedia to notify the Irish Gardi and Interpol as to the events that has occurred here and what might be connected to my sudden death or any injury that might fall upon me. I have already been threatened by phone call prior to this and this matter is being brought to the attention of our Irish police (Gardi) force. I have now made a public similar statement on my own personal website, that my health and welfare might be at risk. Jeff Rudd ( talk) 18:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope the administration takes note of the above. . . (1) At the very least he admits he has "an interest in left-wing politics and Irish republicanism" ...This alone conflicts politically - "competitors" as stated in the Wiki rules as being a conflict of interests. ALL his edits and alterations (ALLEGATIONS - not proven facts) that have been posted - are in rival to his own organisation. . . (2) Again, I ask the administrators to google through Google image, the words ""Tiocfaidh Ár Lá"" (meaning: Our day will come) ...This is NOT to be taken likely. These very words are only used hundred of times, if not thousands, by a political and military terrorist elements that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, over many, many in Ireland and England. This is on historical record. A simple google of this also will prove this sadly all too easily.
If I am in COI then equally CommieMark stands so too. without question and ALL his alterations to our Wiki political section should be taken in that light - as additionally an attempt to besmirch political opposition.
Additionally, the only recourse of this person supporting a political competitor in Ireland is to resort to insults and makes light of a still on going dangerous situation I and many others still find ourselves in within Ireland.
Its NOT "paranoid crazy" to state that serious elements of ...as CommieMark put it himself "left-wing politics and Irish republicanism"... have gone out and killed - even to this day in Ireland.
This is not paranoid crazy talk - events on Irish soil to this day bear this out. A google of Irish news related to Irish political life and Republicanism will easily bear this out.
The violence continues and I have been personally threatened. My wife and four children to not consider the threats to be just "paranoid crazy". They are now seriously worried - as is the rest of my family.
Jeff Rudd ( talk) 07:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This user, 9k7kq3 has exclusively made edits promoting the Chinese website Soso.com. Edits include:
Not to mention, this user is repeatedly reverting my edits, and the edits of others who undo their edits.
Now, I'm not saying that this guy is definitely a promotion-only account, but from what I've seen so far, I'm strongly suspecting that he is. -- benlisquare T• C• E 02:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
On NextWorth's behalf, I've prepared a first draft of a proposed expansion of their article at Talk:NextWorth Solutions that I believe would be an improvement to Wikipedia. If an editor is willing to consider my work for inclusion and/or provide feedback, I would be very appreciative of your time. Since it's a small company/article with an inactive Talk page, I figured it would be best to advertise it here. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
MacKeeper is a software product for Macintosh OS X computers that may be a legitimate maintenance product or may be malware. Its article was created about a year ago. Two authors made most of the initial edits, creating the majority of the text in the article. One of those authors admitted to a connection to the company marketing the product but has since removed the admission from their talk page. The other didn't make any admission but has a "disclaimer" on his talk page that he "... in the past worked as a consultant for IT and Security Companies and may edit those pages from time to time". He (or she) has only ever edited one page not related to Zeobit, Kromtech, PCKeeper or MacKeeper.
Another editor, whose good faith I have no reason to question, claims that "Copy editing on the article was completed after the article was identified as a having potential advert issues sometime in Jan/Feb 2013." Since that time, that editor has been informally policing the article, ensuring that any competing edits are reverted and, in particular, removed the COI tag. The editor in question has been notified of this posting.
My view is that the COI tag should remain, at a minimum. Reactions, please.... Fiachra10003 ( talk) 13:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
SPA creating and managing articles on AdultVest and its former owner Francis Koenig (PROD-deleted long ago), adding unsourced information and deleting unflattering information. I thought this had stopped with the sale of AdultVest (in an apparently pump and dump that probably leveraged this Wikipedia article considering the peak in editing prior), but the reputation management seems to have resumed. Also deletes unflattering article Talk page commentary. [34] No Talk page communications ever.
I have restored this article to a less sanitized state, will hopefully will find time this weekend to update it. However, whatever I enter is certain to be removed by User:Ibnewswire in the near future. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
User continues to remove information about cheating pattern at Harvard -- here and here despite solid information about cheating from NBC News, USA Today, The New York Times and Harvard itself. Seems like a public relations whitewash in clear violation of rules about Wikipedia's neutrality.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
((undent) Step back, see the bigger picture: Harvard had a major scandal, reported nationwide, with dozens of students expelled, administrators rethinking policy. It was a big deal. I added two lines, with references, which were removed promptly, twice. Readers familiar with the scandal, who see no mention of it on the Harvard wikipage, will see our beloved encyclopedia as biased and may suspect Harvard PR people are doing a whitewash cover-up, that Harvard graduates editing their page have not yet learned what Wikipedians know -- that Nixon-like coverups are futile.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 10:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Editor created the article about Dr. Huser, and has made contributions to articles about the first name itself and to articles about US immigration visas types.
Most notably (and relevant for this filing), this user has quite frequently added references to Dr. Huser's work, particularly at Trialome but on other pages as well ( [35], [36]) raising the possibility of WP:SELFCITE/ WP:REFSPAM. There is at least one related IP address that has also added such references, 128.231.203.36 though this seems more consistent with inadvertent editing while not logged in, rather than socking. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 18:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
User: Timkroehler appears to be on Wikipedia in order to pursue a pro- Twelve Tribes communities perspective, as evidenced by [37] and [38]. This includes removing sourced content concerning the group's teachings on race and cheese, and adding poorly sourced (I. e., WP: PRIMARY) claims in their place. There's also a lot of SYNTH in his edits, such as implying that the group can't possibly be anti-Semitic (which its critics claim) because its members engage in Israeli folk dancing (juxtaposing two unrelated issues to draw a completely unwarranted assumption. That they like Israeli folk dancing proves nothing, there are also a few white supremacist rappers, after all).
According to his userpage, he is a member of the group. What should be done about this? FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 20:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently proposed an edit to the talk page of the article for Aleksandar Vučić, First Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia. I am registering here that I work for Bell Pottinger and that the Government of Serbia is my client. Many thanks. Vivj2012 ( talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Mediababy is a WP:SPA (or dual-purpose account) which has only ever edited pages related to David Lloyd (musician) and his band Uropa Lula. Andreasegde has a much more varied history, but has edited both those pages, and also the page on Andrew Edge, who was a member of Uropa Lula with David Lloyd. COI seems clear in both cases. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Mtbrown8 identifies himself on his talkpage as acting for Mark Brown and Sergio Ulgiati. Mark T Brown is a systems ecologist at the University of Florida, an academic with an impressive list of publications. Some of those publications are on the topic of "emergy", which as far as I, no scientist, am able to determine, is pseudoscience.
On 4 June 2010 Mtbrown8 inserted a massive ready-made article at Emergy, without an edit summary, but with this comment on the talkpage:
"Content of Emergy page was replaced by MT Brown and S Ulgiati according to a mandate received from the International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research (ISAER) during the most recent Biennial Emergy Conference (16-18 January 2010). MT Brown is the ISAER Historian and S Ulgiati is President-elect 2010. We thank those who displayed their efforts in earlier attempts of setting up an emergy page and other related pages in Wikipedia. Suggestions on strengthening the article are welcome."
On 21 August (and again on 24 August following a reversion) I restored the article to its status prior to the intervention of Mtbrown8, which I perceived as resulting from an evident conflict of interest. That status was a redirect to Embodied energy. Mtbrown8 then posted on my talkpage, first this, to which I replied on his talk, and then:
"JLAN....an interesting catch 22. Maybe you can help me to understand. The International Society for Emergy Research, after reading the terrible entry regarding emergy, asked that I as it's historian write an article for the Wikipedia. I did as they requested. As a scientist who has spent the last 30 years researching in the field of emergy it was felt that I had the perspective necessary to write such an article. I am now told that I cannot write such an entry because I am too close to the subject. It seems that writing for an encyclopedia subject should come from experts in that field. How do we get around this catch 22?"
I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to continue to respond to his questions on my own, so am posting here both for opinions on whether there is as I believe a conflict of interest here, and also to allow scrutiny by others of the steps I have taken to date. Any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings....I posted the following on Montanabwl's talk page in response to his reply to a posting on Justlettersandnumbers (JLAN) talk page....
Montanabw...thanks for weighing in on the emergy catch 22. I'm not sure how to proceed (first let me say that I am not versed in Wikipedia usage, so only tentatively understand how the talk pages work). In your response to me you suggested that I weigh-in on the Emergy talk page. I'd like to, but the page has been removed and replaced by a redirect to embodied energy. I think you also mentioned that I could demonstrate my lack of a conflict of interest by citing the published literature (or something along those lines) The emergy article I wrote was well documented and had many references to the scientific literature. There seemed to be a difference of opinion back in 2010 when I posted the article as one editor suspected COI while another weighed in saying it didn't look like conflict to him/her. At that time, Like currently, I did/do not know how to proceed following the accusation.
You asked for peer reviewed articles. here's a partial list (last 5 years) of my peer reviewed articles on emergy: Campbell, E.T. and M. T. Brown. 2012. Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System. Environment, Development and Sustainability 15 (5):691-724. Brown, M.T. M. Raugei, and S. Ulgiati. 2012. On boundaries and ‘investments’ in Emergy synthesis and LCA: A case study on thermal vs. photovoltaic electricity. Ecological Indicators 15 (2012) 227–235 Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati. 2011. Understanding the global economic crisis: A biophysical perspective. Ecological Modelling 223 (2011) 4– 13. Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2010. Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy driving the geobiosphere: A review and refinement of the emergy baseline. Ecological Modeling, 221(20): 2501-2508. Brown, M.T., Protano, G., and Ulgiati, S., 2010. Assessing Geobiosphere Work of Generating Global Reserves of Coal, Crude Oil, and Natural Gas. Ecological Modeling, 222(3): 879–887. Brown, M.T., A. Martinez, and J. Uche. (2010). Emergy analysis applied to the estimation of the recovery of costs for water services under the European water framework directive. Ecological Modelling 221:2123-2132. Brown, M.T. and K.C.Reiss. 2010. Landscape Development Intensity and Pollutant Emergy/Empower Density Indices as Indicators of Ecosystem Health. in Jorgensen, et. al (eds) Handbook of Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health 2nd ed. CRC Press, New York.171-188p. Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati. 2010. Emergy Indices of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics. In Jorgensen, et. al (eds)Handbook of Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health, 2nd ed. CRC Press, New York.333-352p. Aries, M. E. and M.T. Brown. 2009. Feasibility of using constructed treatment wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment in the Bogotá Savannah, Colombia. Ecological Engineering 35:1070-1078 Brown, M.T. M.J. Cohen, and S. Sweeney. 2009. Predicting National Sustainability: the convergence of energetic, economic and environmental realities. Ecological Modeling 220: 3424-3438 Ulgiati, S. and M.T. Brown. 2009. Emergy and Ecosystem Complexity. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation. 14:1 (310-21) Brown, M.T. and M.J. Cohen. 2007. Emergy and network analysis. In Fath, B.D. and S.E. Jorgensen (eds.) Encyclopedia of Ecology. Elsevier. New York 18p. Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati, 2007. Emergy, transformity and net emergy yield. In. Capehart, B.L. (ed) Encyclopedia of Energy Engineering and Technology. Marceal Dekker, New York .NY Ferreyra, C. and M.T. Brown. 2007. Emergy Perspectives On The Argentine Economy During The Twentieth Century: A Tale Of Natural Resources, Exports And External Debt. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. Vol 6:1,pp17-35 Brown, M.T., M.J. Cohen, E. Bardi and W.W. Ingwersen. 2006. Species diversity in the Florida Everglades, USA: A systems approach to calculating biodiversity. Aquatic Sciences. Vol 68 No. 3: 254-277.
BTW, I have written several encyclopedia articles (see Brown and Cohen 2007; Brown and Ulgiati, 2007; Brown and Ulgiati 2010; Brown and Reiss, 2010) and was not disqualified or accused of a conflict of interest, In fact was sought out as the expert in the field.
I contacted JLAN asking advice on how to proceed and received no reply. I have read the COI article, neutral point of view, etc. I believe that I have not violated wikipedia's COI. I would like to find out how to remove the re-direct and reinstate the page. Thanks for any help/advice you can provide. Mtbrown8 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Currently the redirect has been removed, but it appears that it may be reinstated? (I don't know what semi-protection means in this case.). BTW a redirect to embodied energy is not appropriate as emergy is NOT embodied energy.
JLAN suggests that energy is a pseudo-science (but admits not being a scientist). While I certainly dispute this assertion, there are hundreds of scientists throughout the world who would take exception as well. I can see how one might feel that way after reading the earlier post on emergy and it was that post which prompted my wholesale replacement in 2010. Also the post on emergy synthesis was authored by the same person and contained inaccuracies and references to inappropriate material. Again if one were to read that post, one might feel that it is a pseudo-science
Other than discussing this here on the COI notice board, what needs to happen to remove this conflict of interest?
Thanks Mtbrown8 ( talk) 15:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It appear that Justlettersandnumbers is continually attempting to delete the Emergy page while this discussion is still ongoing. The page is by no means beyond redemption, but I believe it does need some revising. I have tagged it as needing multiple types of fixes. I'm not a scientist in the field, but am a scientist and know that while not mainstream, for Justlettersandnumbers to claim Emergy is pseudoscience is laughable (and also an accusation that doesn't have any evidence backing it up). Also, this discussion is about conflict of interest, so I don't know why the accusation of "pseudoscience" is even relevant here. I propose we close this discussion pending further cleanup of the Emergy page and revisit it in a few months. 24.4.102.221 ( talk) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. After posting about this at WikiProject Politics it was suggested on my talk page that I bring this request here. I'm an employee at The Heritage Foundation and I'm looking for help making some improvements to the article for Jim DeMint, the current president of Heritage. I've rewritten a section of DeMint's article to address two different tags on the section and I'd like to have an editor look at my updates due to my COI with this topic. The section I have rewritten is about DeMint's Political positions. You can see my rewritten section on the article's talk page if you think this is something you can help with. Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 19:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I own and operate Playlist.com, which is a streaming music website, a competitor to Pandora and others. The Wikipedia article has out-of-date information. I attempted to change it, but my changes were reverted. I have never edited a Wikipedia article before, and I came to learn that I have a COI. I'm not sure how to go about getting the article updated. There is actually a lot of information that could be added about the history of the company, including disputes and ultimately resolution with the record labels, although candidly I don't have time to author all of that. I am seeking guidance on how to update the article or perhaps even find someone who is willing to update it instead of me.
Can someone take a look at this article? A person contacted me after tags were placed on the article to say that, after repeated deletions by one or two editors who appear to have conflict of interest, news reports about certain events were repeatedly removed from the article. This person also reported that several tries were made to reintroduce newsworthy information into the article, but instead ran into instances of repeated deletions by at least one, if not both editors. If that is the case, the actions of editors in question may also be exhibiting issues related to WP:OWN in addition to WP:COI. At present, this article is clearly written as a resume or curriculum vitae for the subject of the article. → Lwalt ♦ talk 00:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User was creating an article about themself. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 09:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Louise Blouin Media appears to have been created by someone using a username similar to the real-world name of an employee of that company, and to have been subsequently edited by at least three other editors with usernames very similar to the real-world names of other employees of the company, who of course may or may not actually be those employees. The edit histories of two of them also include massive and systematic additions or modifications of external links to the website(s) of the same company in many articles here. I have left {{ Uw-coi}} notices on their talkpages. Can the problems arising from this all be dealt with here? If not, who else should be notified? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
GabrielF discounted my requests to have my name added to the list of alumni of the Bronx High School of Science by sending me this note after my third or fourth request: "Why don't you post your request at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? GabrielF (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" So that's what I am doing.
I graduated BX Science in 1976. There are already many of my classmates and about 70 more alumni listed. Although some (8) are Nobel Laureates, some only have such notable qualifications as "biologist", "Conservative Rabbi", "ecologist", "Professional ballroom dancer", "Professor", "owner of a printing company", and then there's the former runner up in a beauty pageant. If we forget everything else that I did - forget the acting, which should be good enough since I have been in "multiple notable films, television shows, & other productions" as can be verified on IMDb here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4582170/ and elsewhere with minimum searching; forget the authoring, which should be good enough since I have had 10 or more blogs and articles on 12 Step Recovery on InTheRooms.com: http://bamrubenstein.caimanhunter.com/published015_itr_02.html, http://na-blog.com, and have spoken at numerous NA conventions as the keynote speaker, some of my MP3s are listed here: http://bamrubenstein.caimanhunter.com/speakertapes.html; the over 2 years of monthly columns in Biker Living magazine; and forget all the other accolades that I've received, such as attaining the rank of Chief of a fire department, being a crew chief in the US Air Force Fire Department, being the Commander of a medical standby company, and having attained the certifications and degrees as a fire science instructor, HazMat tech and Science Officer and guest instructor at TEEX Fire Science Training School at Texas A&M University.
Forgetting all of those, I believe I rank among notable alumni of Bronx Science due to one undeniable thing that I've accomplished - which meets all of your criteria - and that is my work with caiman. You might not know what they are and you might not think that they or it's a big deal, but caiman are one of only 23 different types of crocodilians, they are the third nastiest of all crocodilians and caiman have been on the endangered species list in the past and are still on the protected watch list. I was called "the US' #1 authority on Caiman" by Reptile Channel. Reptiles magazine called me an "Expert in my Field" and had me do an article on caiman for them - the article can be found here: http://caimanhunter.com/expert.html; Reptile Radio interviewed me and did a one hour show focused on my and my work with caiman, which can be found here: http://caimanhunter.com/images/videos/reptileradioshowwbam.mp3; I was asked to do my own 1/2 hour weekly blogtalkradio listener call-in show on caiman called, "Live with the CaimanHunter" - archives of past shows can be found here: http://my.blogtalkradio.com/bam-the-caimanhunter; my rescue operation was seen on Fox7 News and I was interviewed by Nancy Zambrano - the piece that aired can be seen here: http://caimanhunter.com/images/videos/thrallcaimannews.mpg; I have gotten calls from Texas Fish and Wildlife to capture loose caiman; and I have a web site dedicated to caiman that is extensively used as a resource by Bayou Beasts, ZooKeepers, and other reputable reptile rescues. My work with caiman, alone, should get me on the alumni list, if not a page on Wikipedia all to myself.
GabrielF thought that I should come here since, for some unknown reason, she kept turning my requests down. The first time she wrote: "I will not add your name to the list of alumni of The Bronx High School of Science. Our policy on lists of alumni can be found at WP:ALUMNI. In order for an individual to be considered notable, we require that that person be covered by multiple, reliable secondary sources, for instance, newspaper or magazine articles. We do not consider IMDB or an Amazon authors page to be reliable sources as they can be written by the article subject and there is no editorial review. GabrielF (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)" But even though IMDb articles may be written by the subjects, checking their stats against the movies pages themselves or doing any number of other searches should remove that obstacle, as well as the fact the IMDb does background checks before they will let you say you were in a movie.
The second time she wrote: "Respectfully, I am certain from the links that you have provided that you have lived a rich and fulfilling life. However, I do not believe that you would meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. You've presented some articles that you've written and some places in which you've been quoted. Some of this is relevant, some of it is not. For instance, I could not find your name in the Austin American Statesman article. And we do not accept IMDB as a reliable source for reasons that I described above. What's left are a couple of articles that you've written, which we would not consider evidence of notability as they are not independent of you as a source, and a couple of local or specialized publications where you've been interviewed or quoted. All of this is commendable, but I do not believe it meets the notability criteria in terms of depth of coverage. Consider that the alumni list includes eight Nobel laureates. I have no conflicts of interest regarding anything that you've been involved with. If you would like another editor to look at this issue, I would recommend posting at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/noticeboard. GabrielF (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)" If some is relevant, and that covers the minimum requirements, what's the problem?
And finally she wrote, "Why don't you post your request at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? GabrielF (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" So I am.
Thank you, Lee Bam "CaimanHunter" Rubenstein Bx Science class of 1976 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRubens ( talk • contribs)
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.
Sexycristina As far as the talkpage mentions is that the current user violated the Wikipedia's conflict of interest rule by using above as a username. He/she didn't made a single edit, but her userpage was deleted, but the talkpage remained. What should we as a community do?-- Mishae ( talk) 04:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Sovtek The current user is apparently using a Russian company name (see above).-- Mishae ( talk) 04:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Aveda The current user is apparently using his or her user name for a promotional reason. See the top for clarification.-- Mishae ( talk) 05:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Brooklyn riot This user apparently promotes the music group, see the userpage for more info.-- Mishae ( talk) 05:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Riddick7 This user uses a brand name of a video game. Conflict of interest?-- Mishae ( talk) 05:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Ultra Games This user is using Australian Ultra Games as his user name, a clear username violation here!-- Mishae ( talk) 05:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Agentia imobiliara Inter-Med Sibiu Uses the name of a foreign agency.-- Mishae ( talk) 05:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Editor keeps re-inserting a very, very fluffy list of "notables". The COI is obvious from their user page, which contains this rather unacceptable message: "I work at McMurry University. Unless you an official of McMurry University, do not undo my edits." They're persistent and they're just asking for a block for COI and OWNership, not to mention plugging their employer, which is what their (non-MOS compliant) version of the "notables" list is doing. Drmies ( talk) 18:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Martin raul campos has created extensively edited the above articles, on Perez, "an American author and entrepreneur" and his book The Speed Traders, together with the recently-deleted
Knightmare On Wall Street (book) (see AfD
[1]), and appears to be unconcerned with the promotional tone of the material, despite being informed of policy and guidelines (see for example his deletion of notability and advertisement tags here:
[2]). I have also repeatedly drawn the attention of Martin raul campos to
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy, but had no satisfactory response. Given his editing behaviour, it seems entirely reasonable to me at least to assume that there is indeed a conflict of interest. I would therefore ask for comment by other editors/admins as to what might be the best course of action to deal with this issue.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks for your help.
I have no relationship with Edgar Perez I just found his books particularly interesting and that's why I was editing them. I was trying to make it more neutral but unfortunately you erased the page. I understand all the guideline and policy of wikipedia so I respect what you've done. I'm just learning that's why I couldn't do it correctly. I think I'm going study and practice more before I move a new article.
Thanks for everything
Martin Campos
Martin raul campos (
talk)
15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of the company Accenture, looking to improve two articles here on Wikipedia: the article for Accenture itself, as well as that of the company's chairman & CEO, Pierre Nanterme. Since I have a financial COI here, I won't be making any edits myself; instead, I've proposed changes on Talk:Accenture and Talk:Pierre Nanterme, and have been trying to solicit help from volunteer editors to review the changes. However, it's been something of a struggle to find folks to help, despite posting in a number of locations, like Paid Editor Help, as well as reaching out to some editors individually. User:FeralOink was helping out at Accenture for a bit, but they seem to be busy now, and one of the remaining issues there is something I'd like another perspective on anyway. So, if someone here is willing to take a look and give me a hand here, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance! ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 18:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
User came to WT:MED asking for eyes on a deletion discussion (for Malafa). Entered vote, but upon looking at user page Noticed that all articles they created were physicians from Moffitt cancer center, seemed pretty thin on RS, and were rather obvious resumes. See also this deletion discussion. Articles spring apparently fully formed from this editor, without collaboration, AfC, or sandbox activity. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 18:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This Anastasia International article has had some really suspicious activity on it for the last 6-8 months. A major contributor was blocked for being a sockpuppet ( User:Entyre) and I'm currently in discussions that other users now editing the page might be sockpuppets of that user. However, on that discussion page, which you can see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alexis418, Alexis418 admitted that he used to work for the company, which for me means he has a Wikipedia:COI. Not only this, all the edits I make trying to improve the article and clarify the companies controversy, he is merely reverting. I personally don't think someone who could be a disgruntled ex employee should be editing this page, especially when all they are doing is reverting edits. Verdict78 ( talk) 10:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Still having problems with a disgruntled ex-employee on this page, could someone look into this and advise how to proceed please. Again, on the sockpuppet page (link above) Alexis418 said he'd worked for the company previously. In the last 10 days the user has reverted around 10 attempted improvements. During this 10 day period, he has made no effort to improve the article, merely explain briefly on the talk page why he doesn't think the change should take place. He constantly keeps repeating he knows a lot about the company but yet is to make a single improvement on the page during this period. It wouldn't surprise me if he sees this and does just that! To me its obvious (for whatever reason) this user is blocking any progression of this page, with no intention of making any changes. I hope someone can look into this sooner rather than later, because this is eating into my editing time considerably. Verdict78 ( talk) 22:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Verdict78 might consider doing more thorough research on the subject material, so that his edits would be accurate and stick. I've repeatedly suggested we try to come up with a clear common description of our common and different viewpoints so that we can solicit 3rd opinions where we differ. Reading the conflict of interest policy carefully, I do not have a conflict of interest. I do have a personal interest, but not a financial or otherwise conflictual one. If we don't allow people to edit areas where they have a personal interest, unfortunately we would also be disabling the editors who have the most knowledge about specific subjects. Any other editors who are interested to help with the Anastasia International article are welcome. I had previously asked for a 3rd opinion but the editor who came to help said we had not articulated our 2 positions well enough on the talk page to be ready for that yet. Alexis418 ( talk) 07:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You do have a conflict of interest and I quote - "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest." You've just admitted above to having a 'personal' interest in the outcome of the article. Not only this you also stated that you were previously an employee of the business on the sockpuppet discussion here. You are yet to make a single edit on the page, and are reverting every change I make. You also seem to 'become active' on the page the minute anyone seems to change the article dramatically as you can see on your history page. My personal opinion in dealing with you and viewing all this information is that for the last 6 months you have sat, reverting edits on a single page. You are a single use account, and have openly admitted to having a COI on TWO occasions now. Can someone please look into this so that myself and other real editors can get on with improving Wikipedia Verdict78 ( talk) 08:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
That is hilarious, Verdict78. I don't have an external relationship with Anastasia, none whatsoever. I did in the past and I acknowledged it, I have an interest just as many people with knowledge of topics have that knowledge related to their interest in the topic. I doubt you could say the same. Is it a coincidence that the chrunchbase page you just decided to reference was modified to say exactly what you wanted it to say in the past few days? 10 days ago it didn't say what it does now - http://web.archive.org/web/20130807215042/http://crunchbase.com/company/anastasia-web - you've had it changed, or changed it yourself, to support a fantasy that Anastasia's dark past was cut off from its present. Yes, there's a conflict of interest here - now how about you tell the truth and reveal it, because you are the one with the conflict of interest to whitewash the company's business practice. Who is paying you, and how much, to whitewash the Wikipedia page for Anastasia? Alexis418 ( talk) 08:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Deflecting the investigation to me - nice work! Funny you say that you don't have an external relationship with Anastasia, even though you say on two occasions that you do? Rather than wasting my time arguing with you, I think I'll let others decide who is in the wrong. Verdict78 ( talk) 10:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As I have said in the past, I have a PAST employment relationship with the company and at present only an INTEREST but not an external or material interest. Perhaps you should go back and do what I have suggested 5x to you, you should actually READ the references that you keep deleting, instead of creating fake references of your own on the internet - and after you have READ the references, then we can together come up with a common statement of our different opinions of what are the relevant sources and then ask for 3rd party suppert. You are like your president Obama whose strategy in every election has been disqualifying in one way or another and trying to befriend the media and police, rather than making a valid case. Meanwhile, the question remains, why were YOU so INTERESTED in Anastasia that you went out of your way to EDIT an EXTERNAL PAGE in order to support your case that was not based on any publicly available information, Verdict??? You're right, something STINKS in the article, and it's Your Side that is "Interested". I reread your comments on another page and you are talking about MALTA and say "It's not a corporate office"... Well I found at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10740233.htm that MARK BROOKS is currently CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER of ANASTASIA -> http://www.meetup.com/Expats-Malta/members/12174821/ and is in MALTA. I also noticed that you love to post links to Mark Brooks Blog http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/markbrooks/mediterranean/ ?? and that an editor Mcbrooks has editied Anastasia article? But maybe he prefer to IP edit from MALTA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/McBrooks is deleted and that's fine because I prefer to focus now on the subject material, not so much obsess about other editors. Do you work for McBrooks, is that why you have edited an external page in order to fill out a story to make it something Mark Brooks would approve of? Just wondering but since you bring this subject up in the COI page let's all be honest now. Alexis418 ( talk) 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It's even more interesting than this. I have taken a look at Graham Philips (supposed sockmaster, if I'm not mistaken Verdict78 is even trying to accuse me of being his sockpuppet.) and Mcbrooks more closely. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mcbrooks - this sockpuppet investigation was "deleted" by Rschen7754 on April 19 at 4:58. Then a few hours later, Rschen7754 closed the "GrahamPhilips" sockpuppet "investigation": http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FGrahamWPhillips&diff=560581229&oldid=560579468 - With a $100 million budget, it's likely that this company convinced Rschen7754 to do both these things to ban all editors who disagreed with them. Maybe it was a coincidence and Rschen7754 was just cleaning out the sockpuppet page that day. I'll ask Rschen7754 to comment whether or not anyone contacted him/her with a request to act on these 2 "investigations". Alexis418 ( talk) 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The contents of the Video Unlimited Wikipedia are wrong, particularly the countries that Video Unlimited is listed as being available in. We've submitted corrected copy on the Talk page for that entry but we're hoping to expedite the issue by flagging it here.
Here's the page's current copy:
The service includes films from several major studios, including Sony's own studio; Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Fox Home Entertainment, Lionsgate Home Entertainment, MGM Home Entertainment, NBCUniversal (Universal Studios), Paramount Home Entertainment, Walt Disney Home Entertainment, Warner Home Video, 2 entertain, BBC and RTÉ. It can be accessed through Sony Blu-ray players, personal computers, the PlayStation 3, Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc, BRAVIA televisions and some portable music players.[1] It has been announced that the PlayStation 4 will also be able to stream content from VU on launch day. It became available in the United States of America in June 2010, on the night of Sonys E3 2010 announcement it launched Canada, in July 2010. It launched in the United Kingdom and Ireland in September 2010 and in China, Hong Kong and Japan on 26 January 2011. It launched in all European union countries including Scandinavia (except in Finland), Greece, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal in June 2011 (originally scheduled for November 2010). It launched in Australasia in July 2011. On 2 November 2012, it also became available in South Korea.
Here's our requested edits, which just deal with factual inaccuracies:
The service includes TV episodes and new release films as well as a wide variety of favorites, classics and local language movies from all major studios, including Sony's own studio; Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, and Warner Bros, as well as many small and independent studios. It can be accessed through Sony Blu-ray players, personal computers, the PlayStation 3, Sony Xperia smartphones and tablets , BRAVIA televisions and some portable music players.[1] It has been announced that the PlayStation 4 will also be able to stream content from VU on launch day.
It became available in the United States of America in February 2010 in the United States and expanded to the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain in November 2010. The service later launched in Japan, in January, 2011, Canada in February, 2011 and Australia in June 2011
Help here would be appreciated since we want to make sure to respect the Wikipedia community and the process for making changes. User:Gbelloni ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
National Museum of Patriotism, about a formerly physical, now virtual museum, has recently been expanded with some overtly self-interested edits [5], including some content expressly credited to the director of the museum. Some of these changes strike me as sufficiently-sourced improvements, other changes may be viewed as excessive and not NPOV. And some of the content sounds like it may have come directly from museum literature, although I haven't yet spotted any clear copying. Attention from some COI-experienced editors would be beneficial. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear board, I'm seeking some advice on the above mentioned article. It is about a highly controversial and very recent topic (part of the article has not yet taken place). In my view, Wikipedia is being used for Campaigning as described in WP:COI. This article is used in the following website [6] as campaigning material to promote certain political views by a group of editors. I cannot however prove that these editors are directly involved in the webpage mentioned. In my opinion, this article does not follow Wikipedia's policy as it shows a tendentious approach WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV Arcillaroja ( talk) 14:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The organizers said there will be more than 200 journalists accredited in the Catalan Way, more than last year. Therefore, it will be again in the international focus and it's important to have a complete article. -- Davidpar ( talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Editor appears to be promoting his company, although he's made good previous contributions so unsure as to why he'd decide to promote suddenly, Also I've pointed him to COI, Thanks →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 02:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Despite0 a pledge on his user page regarding conflict of interests when it comes to articles relating to transsexualism, a arbitration case involving said COIs, and his well-known professional affiliations with Ray Blanchard, it appears that Dr. Cantor is still editing in areas he, by his own admission, shouldn't. This diff, in particular, is rather disconcerting; it's directly in his userpage pledge, and he seems to be violating the spirit of WP:CLAIM. I haven't looked into the edits to the GID article too closely, but he seems to be removing citations under SPS; while often permissible, the fact that one of the people removed was explicitly thanked in IJT for her work on the issue ( doi: 10.1080/15532739.2010.509201) is also rather concerning. Sceptre ( talk) 13:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Nickpopoff ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
Despite several warnings, user is a single purpose account whose edits only concern Peter Popoff. Given the username, the claims of intimate knowledge of the Popoff family ( diff and diff), and the user's page content, the conflict of interest is quite clear. DKqwerty ( talk) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi – I have posted on the talk page of the article for Matthew Bryden, who is my client. I work for Bell Pottinger, a PR firm – see my user page for more info. Many thanks. HOgilvy ( talk) 17:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I have now become well-read on it enough to speak somewhat intelligently on the article. I've posted a break on the article's Talk page here regarding the WP:ONEEVENT issue and I think the BLP board would have to sort that out before anything that is relevant for COIN. I have not found any secondary sources where he is the subject of the article, only articles that cover political events and criticize his involvement in them, but this is only regarding 4 years of his life where he held a controversial role. I am leaning towards it being a good candidate for deletion under ONEEVENT. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Midday and I have reached an impasse, mostly regarding the use of a press release and op-eds written by Bryden's political opposition to add controversial information. I've attempted to summarize the issues here and asked Drmies to get involved so we could have more than two editors and maybe figure things out. More eyes would certainly be welcome as well. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Mediababy is a WP:SPA (or dual-purpose account) which has only ever edited pages related to David Lloyd (musician) and his band Uropa Lula. Andreasegde has a much more varied history, but has edited both those pages, and also the page on Andrew Edge, who was a member of Uropa Lula with David Lloyd. COI seems clear in both cases. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Continuation of previously reported Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_64#RyLaughlin
Hello,
My name is Barry and I work for DPR Construction. I noticed that we’re not here, but I think our projects are on par with the others that are currently available. I hope you agree. In any case, I created a sandbox for your consideration and would really appreciate your feedback (
LINK TO SANDBOX). As it is our first attempt, we recognize it will likely need changes. The entry cites independent sources in an effort to verify the content and establish that DPR is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this and provide feedback.
Sincerely,
Barry — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bucktown1980 (
talk •
contribs)
08:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's much doubt about this in view of the username and edit history. It is however not 100% a WP:SPA. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Continuation of previously reported Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_64#RyLaughlin
Hello,
My name is Barry and I work for DPR Construction. I noticed that we’re not here, but I think our projects are on par with the others that are currently available. I hope you agree. In any case, I created a sandbox for your consideration and would really appreciate your feedback (
LINK TO SANDBOX). As it is our first attempt, we recognize it will likely need changes. The entry cites independent sources in an effort to verify the content and establish that DPR is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this and provide feedback.
Sincerely,
Barry — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bucktown1980 (
talk •
contribs)
08:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's much doubt about this in view of the username and edit history. It is however not 100% a WP:SPA. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to register my conflict of interest with regard to the creation of an article on Yassmin Ghandehari, a client of mine who is a designer and philanthropist. If you have any questions then do contact me on my talk page. Thanks Vivj2012 ( talk) 15:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This IP user has exclusively made spam edits promoting the website "sentuamsg.com". There are zero (0) constructive edits by this editor since the dawn of time. Diffs: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] -- benlisquare T• C• E 18:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This user:
Creator of these articles:
by his own admission (at some point was editing his own (now deleted) self-biographical article) is Oscar del Santo [26].
He has created a number of articles in the same line, regarding mostly professors of a few institutions (see above). These professors/researchers, in most cases do not meet the criteria for notability (if every reasearcher with 40 publication deserves a wikipedia article, there should be tens of thousands of placeholder biographies that would not give any information that is not available in their published CV's on their personal pages). Moreover, the links in the above articles (only the biographical ones, the other are institutions, and as such deserve their articles) only point to self-created materials such as pages in their own institutions, or their own research articles.
I understand wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion or in order to achieve more notability. There are clear hints that this editor has clear ties to the institutions and professors whose articles he is editing, and all of them should be reviewed. It is probably also a case of WP:NOPR WP:NOPAY.
While I do not know personally any of the professors involved or the editor, I am reporting this anonymously. Spain is a "small" country. -- 84.120.179.232 ( talk) 19:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Jeff Rudd, who is the Louth Chairman of the DDI organization[] and has identified as so on his user page has over the last number of weeks carried out a large number of disruptive edits on the DDI wikipage including the removal of sourced materials, inclusion of other unsourced and POV material, inclusion of material which he claims are sourced but when the source is checked it is found not to contain what he alleges etc. He has also posted on his personal website attacking editors of Wikipedia - this coincided with the appearance of another disruptive editor JohnRo76 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has also engaged in this behavior. This occurred after Jeff Rudd put out a call for people to engage in an edit war on the site, see[ here] CommieMark ( talk) 17:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Direct Democracy Ireland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I, Jeff Rudd, have asked that the management of Wikipedia to stop anonymous editors of its service, to post ALLEGATIONS up as supposed facts. I have removed at times references that were WRONGLY stated that they were facts (thus proven) when in fact there were just ALLEGATIONS (and NOT proven).
It should be also noted that is ironic that anon' editors are allowed to post inaccurate items up - while those that actually are in such an org and know the truth - in some cases, having been there - that they cannot be allowed to edit and post the truth - with their real name attached and thus stand on public record by what they state.
Wikipedia is currently being edited wrongly and deliberately by people from a political party called Sinn Fein. We know its them, we know were its coming from, we know a lot more. we are willing and will if necessary, post more information about them.
I have argued against ANON editors - ANON' editors - to this page. If people wish to post up items to the DDI page, tell them to stop being cowardly and identify themselves if their facts are supposedly true! ...But no, ANON editors are allowed post inaccurate ALLEGATIONS - not proven facts - and pass them off in reference as supposed then truth facts proved, when they are not and no evidence exists that they have been proven true.
For example, on the site in contention, its stated that DDI is of Freeman nature. This is a complete and utter lie. I have repeatedly asked for this to be proven. Sinn Fein advocates (political opposition) have anon' posted ALLEGATIONS of this as referenced - not posted EVER, actual real proof.
Again I state for the record:
...Yet a political person we know from another party, is allowed anon' to post that we are of wacky Freeman origin - and ONLY reference ALLEGATIONS, many which their own party has actually put out to try besmirch the name of our growing popular organisation! They continuously reference their own allegations submitted into their own paper tabloids produced from their own offices in Dublin, Ireland!
Does anyone here understand the difference between ALLEGATIONS and PROOF? Allegations are NOT proof - they are just crap made up many a time as tried to be passed as proof. As in the case of Wikipedia and Sinn Fein people posting ALLEGATIONS, they are continuously referencing them into Wikipedia as supposed PROOF - then they are not Proof but just ALLEGATIONS!
I have done edits over the last few days - indeed a WIKI moderator (Jreferee) elsewhere has acknowledged already that I have only joined a few days ago - that don't stop others out there however from continuing again to spread lies. The digital dates attached to my edits will be on record for Wiki management to examine at any time of their choosing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Rudd ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Now I am stating FOR THE RECORD AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO THE FOLLOWING: the statement publically made at my personal site at: theruddsite dot com
I publically stand by what I say. I am a public face and Louth chairman of DDI. A position I have been democratically and legally elected to. It (at the very least) should be allowed to be posted that a representative of the organisation, has gone on public record to refute the ALLEGATIONS made - especially the ones made on this site by cowardly always anonymous people from another organisation.
I will continue to state this in the forth coming local and national elections here in Ireland and I will continue to highlight the total wrong inaccuracies in the Wikipedia service allowed be entered by anonymous people from another organisation - one thats highly under question within our own island borders, one that has a very history of killing people over decades including many, many British, Irish and international people.
I repeat:
We have repeatedly asked these people to produce evidence - not allegations, EVIDENCE - they have ALL so far been not able to show anywhere in our constitution, etc anything that is related to either.
I request that the always anonymous posters provide PROOF - do they understand that word? I don't think they want to for good reason. - I request PROOF - NOT ALLEGATIONS just more referenced and tried to be passed as concrete proof - that DDI is of Freeman basis.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN DDI WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT STRANGE, OUT OF FATE THINKING!
Its requested by myself and my organisation that the ALLEGATION stated be removed from the summary box on the right side of the DDI page - that we are of Freeman ideology. It has not been proven and cannot be - its simply is false and there is no proof out there or posted up referenced as verified proof by ANY independent body.
WE ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT - NOR DO WE WANT TO BE!
Please note also:
ONE person might have links to Freeman thinking - the rest of the other 4,000 plus members and fans do not. ONE person does not automatically make a whole organisation what they are. We have Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and other ideologies and faiths in our organisation - in fact more so in numbers than ONE person what MIGHT be of Freeman thinking.
The statement on the Direct Democracy Ireland page where it states "A number of publications and commentators have highlighted DDI's close links to the Freemen on the land movement and the Christian Solidarity Party" is incorrect. The statement on Wiki of what they allege is incorrect, they allege that ONE person is connect to the daft Freeman stuff - not the org! It is not - there might be one person who is - that that like many others, does not taint the organisation and its many thousands of others, right away.
For the record, there is NO material proof that all the rest of the people in it are of Freeman thinking - there might be material that one person might be - but not all the rest. I ask that the statement on the DDI page be adjusted correctly even along the line of "One of the members has been associated with... - while no verified proof exists that shows the rest are of the same ideology"
If a member tomorrow is associated with a party called "The Monster Raving Looney Party" - does that automatically make the rest of us one too? I don't think so - and I don't think anyone with any sense would think so too! ...However one person (anon' editor) and one org behind them is trying so far successfully espouse that this should be the case. This is absolute nuts, a lie and one posted with a political agenda behind it!
Jeff Rudd ( talk) 11:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I. Jeff Rudd do have no conflict of interest against the aims of Wikipedia. In fact in trying to improve its accuracy and further its aims, I have because of the organisation I'm a Chairman in, edited items directly related to my own organisation. How is this a conflict of interests? I'm trying to advance the interest of most of us here - to have the truth broadcast in the media. I am connected to the matter in hand - there is no debate about that - but conflict of interest? Against what else? I am trying to address the lies perpetuated by anon' names and by a front for a world recognised terrorist organisation that is doing it! This matter must be addressed or else sadly Wikipedia is going to stand worldwide as severely incorrect. Jeff Rudd ( talk) 15:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Its ironic that I stand accused of conflict of interests when one anon' CommieMark is breaking the COI rules. The rule he is breaking is on the page linked to above - namely: Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. The anon' editor is an element/supporter of Sinn Fein, a front for an Irish terror organisation known as the IRA - He is constantly altering the data about other political parties that are peacefully opposing his own - that includes Direct Democracy Ireland. All anyone has to do is look that the serious number of edits he does for a number of websites including very regular, his political parties newspaper "An Phoblacht" and other related sites that try to publish information related to other atrocities. These people are know to us as they are known to the Irish Gardi (police) and other countries police as well as investigation departments as home in Ireland, England and elsewhere. He even uses a well known expression on his personal Wiki page "Tiocfaidh Ár Lá" that is TOTALLY connected and used ONLY by the Sinn Fein and IRA organisation. Google it as an image as well as text format. See: sinnfeinbookshop dot com/tiocfaidh-ar-la/ See: img854.imageshack dot us/img854/2468/v7cy.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Rudd ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
This is without question. It can be simply goggled and the facts are there in the hundreds to view. User Commiemark is in conflict of interests as laid used without question, under your current guidelines. Again: namely: "Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors."
I state this knowing that I am putting my life at very risk via other people/supporters out in the real world - and should anything happen to me now or in the future, I wish Wikipedia to notify the Irish Gardi and Interpol as to the events that has occurred here and what might be connected to my sudden death or any injury that might fall upon me. I have already been threatened by phone call prior to this and this matter is being brought to the attention of our Irish police (Gardi) force. I have now made a public similar statement on my own personal website, that my health and welfare might be at risk. Jeff Rudd ( talk) 18:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope the administration takes note of the above. . . (1) At the very least he admits he has "an interest in left-wing politics and Irish republicanism" ...This alone conflicts politically - "competitors" as stated in the Wiki rules as being a conflict of interests. ALL his edits and alterations (ALLEGATIONS - not proven facts) that have been posted - are in rival to his own organisation. . . (2) Again, I ask the administrators to google through Google image, the words ""Tiocfaidh Ár Lá"" (meaning: Our day will come) ...This is NOT to be taken likely. These very words are only used hundred of times, if not thousands, by a political and military terrorist elements that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, over many, many in Ireland and England. This is on historical record. A simple google of this also will prove this sadly all too easily.
If I am in COI then equally CommieMark stands so too. without question and ALL his alterations to our Wiki political section should be taken in that light - as additionally an attempt to besmirch political opposition.
Additionally, the only recourse of this person supporting a political competitor in Ireland is to resort to insults and makes light of a still on going dangerous situation I and many others still find ourselves in within Ireland.
Its NOT "paranoid crazy" to state that serious elements of ...as CommieMark put it himself "left-wing politics and Irish republicanism"... have gone out and killed - even to this day in Ireland.
This is not paranoid crazy talk - events on Irish soil to this day bear this out. A google of Irish news related to Irish political life and Republicanism will easily bear this out.
The violence continues and I have been personally threatened. My wife and four children to not consider the threats to be just "paranoid crazy". They are now seriously worried - as is the rest of my family.
Jeff Rudd ( talk) 07:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This user, 9k7kq3 has exclusively made edits promoting the Chinese website Soso.com. Edits include:
Not to mention, this user is repeatedly reverting my edits, and the edits of others who undo their edits.
Now, I'm not saying that this guy is definitely a promotion-only account, but from what I've seen so far, I'm strongly suspecting that he is. -- benlisquare T• C• E 02:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
On NextWorth's behalf, I've prepared a first draft of a proposed expansion of their article at Talk:NextWorth Solutions that I believe would be an improvement to Wikipedia. If an editor is willing to consider my work for inclusion and/or provide feedback, I would be very appreciative of your time. Since it's a small company/article with an inactive Talk page, I figured it would be best to advertise it here. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
MacKeeper is a software product for Macintosh OS X computers that may be a legitimate maintenance product or may be malware. Its article was created about a year ago. Two authors made most of the initial edits, creating the majority of the text in the article. One of those authors admitted to a connection to the company marketing the product but has since removed the admission from their talk page. The other didn't make any admission but has a "disclaimer" on his talk page that he "... in the past worked as a consultant for IT and Security Companies and may edit those pages from time to time". He (or she) has only ever edited one page not related to Zeobit, Kromtech, PCKeeper or MacKeeper.
Another editor, whose good faith I have no reason to question, claims that "Copy editing on the article was completed after the article was identified as a having potential advert issues sometime in Jan/Feb 2013." Since that time, that editor has been informally policing the article, ensuring that any competing edits are reverted and, in particular, removed the COI tag. The editor in question has been notified of this posting.
My view is that the COI tag should remain, at a minimum. Reactions, please.... Fiachra10003 ( talk) 13:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
SPA creating and managing articles on AdultVest and its former owner Francis Koenig (PROD-deleted long ago), adding unsourced information and deleting unflattering information. I thought this had stopped with the sale of AdultVest (in an apparently pump and dump that probably leveraged this Wikipedia article considering the peak in editing prior), but the reputation management seems to have resumed. Also deletes unflattering article Talk page commentary. [34] No Talk page communications ever.
I have restored this article to a less sanitized state, will hopefully will find time this weekend to update it. However, whatever I enter is certain to be removed by User:Ibnewswire in the near future. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
User continues to remove information about cheating pattern at Harvard -- here and here despite solid information about cheating from NBC News, USA Today, The New York Times and Harvard itself. Seems like a public relations whitewash in clear violation of rules about Wikipedia's neutrality.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
((undent) Step back, see the bigger picture: Harvard had a major scandal, reported nationwide, with dozens of students expelled, administrators rethinking policy. It was a big deal. I added two lines, with references, which were removed promptly, twice. Readers familiar with the scandal, who see no mention of it on the Harvard wikipage, will see our beloved encyclopedia as biased and may suspect Harvard PR people are doing a whitewash cover-up, that Harvard graduates editing their page have not yet learned what Wikipedians know -- that Nixon-like coverups are futile.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 10:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Editor created the article about Dr. Huser, and has made contributions to articles about the first name itself and to articles about US immigration visas types.
Most notably (and relevant for this filing), this user has quite frequently added references to Dr. Huser's work, particularly at Trialome but on other pages as well ( [35], [36]) raising the possibility of WP:SELFCITE/ WP:REFSPAM. There is at least one related IP address that has also added such references, 128.231.203.36 though this seems more consistent with inadvertent editing while not logged in, rather than socking. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 18:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
User: Timkroehler appears to be on Wikipedia in order to pursue a pro- Twelve Tribes communities perspective, as evidenced by [37] and [38]. This includes removing sourced content concerning the group's teachings on race and cheese, and adding poorly sourced (I. e., WP: PRIMARY) claims in their place. There's also a lot of SYNTH in his edits, such as implying that the group can't possibly be anti-Semitic (which its critics claim) because its members engage in Israeli folk dancing (juxtaposing two unrelated issues to draw a completely unwarranted assumption. That they like Israeli folk dancing proves nothing, there are also a few white supremacist rappers, after all).
According to his userpage, he is a member of the group. What should be done about this? FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 20:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently proposed an edit to the talk page of the article for Aleksandar Vučić, First Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia. I am registering here that I work for Bell Pottinger and that the Government of Serbia is my client. Many thanks. Vivj2012 ( talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Mediababy is a WP:SPA (or dual-purpose account) which has only ever edited pages related to David Lloyd (musician) and his band Uropa Lula. Andreasegde has a much more varied history, but has edited both those pages, and also the page on Andrew Edge, who was a member of Uropa Lula with David Lloyd. COI seems clear in both cases. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Mtbrown8 identifies himself on his talkpage as acting for Mark Brown and Sergio Ulgiati. Mark T Brown is a systems ecologist at the University of Florida, an academic with an impressive list of publications. Some of those publications are on the topic of "emergy", which as far as I, no scientist, am able to determine, is pseudoscience.
On 4 June 2010 Mtbrown8 inserted a massive ready-made article at Emergy, without an edit summary, but with this comment on the talkpage:
"Content of Emergy page was replaced by MT Brown and S Ulgiati according to a mandate received from the International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research (ISAER) during the most recent Biennial Emergy Conference (16-18 January 2010). MT Brown is the ISAER Historian and S Ulgiati is President-elect 2010. We thank those who displayed their efforts in earlier attempts of setting up an emergy page and other related pages in Wikipedia. Suggestions on strengthening the article are welcome."
On 21 August (and again on 24 August following a reversion) I restored the article to its status prior to the intervention of Mtbrown8, which I perceived as resulting from an evident conflict of interest. That status was a redirect to Embodied energy. Mtbrown8 then posted on my talkpage, first this, to which I replied on his talk, and then:
"JLAN....an interesting catch 22. Maybe you can help me to understand. The International Society for Emergy Research, after reading the terrible entry regarding emergy, asked that I as it's historian write an article for the Wikipedia. I did as they requested. As a scientist who has spent the last 30 years researching in the field of emergy it was felt that I had the perspective necessary to write such an article. I am now told that I cannot write such an entry because I am too close to the subject. It seems that writing for an encyclopedia subject should come from experts in that field. How do we get around this catch 22?"
I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to continue to respond to his questions on my own, so am posting here both for opinions on whether there is as I believe a conflict of interest here, and also to allow scrutiny by others of the steps I have taken to date. Any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings....I posted the following on Montanabwl's talk page in response to his reply to a posting on Justlettersandnumbers (JLAN) talk page....
Montanabw...thanks for weighing in on the emergy catch 22. I'm not sure how to proceed (first let me say that I am not versed in Wikipedia usage, so only tentatively understand how the talk pages work). In your response to me you suggested that I weigh-in on the Emergy talk page. I'd like to, but the page has been removed and replaced by a redirect to embodied energy. I think you also mentioned that I could demonstrate my lack of a conflict of interest by citing the published literature (or something along those lines) The emergy article I wrote was well documented and had many references to the scientific literature. There seemed to be a difference of opinion back in 2010 when I posted the article as one editor suspected COI while another weighed in saying it didn't look like conflict to him/her. At that time, Like currently, I did/do not know how to proceed following the accusation.
You asked for peer reviewed articles. here's a partial list (last 5 years) of my peer reviewed articles on emergy: Campbell, E.T. and M. T. Brown. 2012. Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System. Environment, Development and Sustainability 15 (5):691-724. Brown, M.T. M. Raugei, and S. Ulgiati. 2012. On boundaries and ‘investments’ in Emergy synthesis and LCA: A case study on thermal vs. photovoltaic electricity. Ecological Indicators 15 (2012) 227–235 Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati. 2011. Understanding the global economic crisis: A biophysical perspective. Ecological Modelling 223 (2011) 4– 13. Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2010. Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy driving the geobiosphere: A review and refinement of the emergy baseline. Ecological Modeling, 221(20): 2501-2508. Brown, M.T., Protano, G., and Ulgiati, S., 2010. Assessing Geobiosphere Work of Generating Global Reserves of Coal, Crude Oil, and Natural Gas. Ecological Modeling, 222(3): 879–887. Brown, M.T., A. Martinez, and J. Uche. (2010). Emergy analysis applied to the estimation of the recovery of costs for water services under the European water framework directive. Ecological Modelling 221:2123-2132. Brown, M.T. and K.C.Reiss. 2010. Landscape Development Intensity and Pollutant Emergy/Empower Density Indices as Indicators of Ecosystem Health. in Jorgensen, et. al (eds) Handbook of Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health 2nd ed. CRC Press, New York.171-188p. Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati. 2010. Emergy Indices of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics. In Jorgensen, et. al (eds)Handbook of Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health, 2nd ed. CRC Press, New York.333-352p. Aries, M. E. and M.T. Brown. 2009. Feasibility of using constructed treatment wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment in the Bogotá Savannah, Colombia. Ecological Engineering 35:1070-1078 Brown, M.T. M.J. Cohen, and S. Sweeney. 2009. Predicting National Sustainability: the convergence of energetic, economic and environmental realities. Ecological Modeling 220: 3424-3438 Ulgiati, S. and M.T. Brown. 2009. Emergy and Ecosystem Complexity. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation. 14:1 (310-21) Brown, M.T. and M.J. Cohen. 2007. Emergy and network analysis. In Fath, B.D. and S.E. Jorgensen (eds.) Encyclopedia of Ecology. Elsevier. New York 18p. Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati, 2007. Emergy, transformity and net emergy yield. In. Capehart, B.L. (ed) Encyclopedia of Energy Engineering and Technology. Marceal Dekker, New York .NY Ferreyra, C. and M.T. Brown. 2007. Emergy Perspectives On The Argentine Economy During The Twentieth Century: A Tale Of Natural Resources, Exports And External Debt. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. Vol 6:1,pp17-35 Brown, M.T., M.J. Cohen, E. Bardi and W.W. Ingwersen. 2006. Species diversity in the Florida Everglades, USA: A systems approach to calculating biodiversity. Aquatic Sciences. Vol 68 No. 3: 254-277.
BTW, I have written several encyclopedia articles (see Brown and Cohen 2007; Brown and Ulgiati, 2007; Brown and Ulgiati 2010; Brown and Reiss, 2010) and was not disqualified or accused of a conflict of interest, In fact was sought out as the expert in the field.
I contacted JLAN asking advice on how to proceed and received no reply. I have read the COI article, neutral point of view, etc. I believe that I have not violated wikipedia's COI. I would like to find out how to remove the re-direct and reinstate the page. Thanks for any help/advice you can provide. Mtbrown8 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Currently the redirect has been removed, but it appears that it may be reinstated? (I don't know what semi-protection means in this case.). BTW a redirect to embodied energy is not appropriate as emergy is NOT embodied energy.
JLAN suggests that energy is a pseudo-science (but admits not being a scientist). While I certainly dispute this assertion, there are hundreds of scientists throughout the world who would take exception as well. I can see how one might feel that way after reading the earlier post on emergy and it was that post which prompted my wholesale replacement in 2010. Also the post on emergy synthesis was authored by the same person and contained inaccuracies and references to inappropriate material. Again if one were to read that post, one might feel that it is a pseudo-science
Other than discussing this here on the COI notice board, what needs to happen to remove this conflict of interest?
Thanks Mtbrown8 ( talk) 15:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It appear that Justlettersandnumbers is continually attempting to delete the Emergy page while this discussion is still ongoing. The page is by no means beyond redemption, but I believe it does need some revising. I have tagged it as needing multiple types of fixes. I'm not a scientist in the field, but am a scientist and know that while not mainstream, for Justlettersandnumbers to claim Emergy is pseudoscience is laughable (and also an accusation that doesn't have any evidence backing it up). Also, this discussion is about conflict of interest, so I don't know why the accusation of "pseudoscience" is even relevant here. I propose we close this discussion pending further cleanup of the Emergy page and revisit it in a few months. 24.4.102.221 ( talk) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. After posting about this at WikiProject Politics it was suggested on my talk page that I bring this request here. I'm an employee at The Heritage Foundation and I'm looking for help making some improvements to the article for Jim DeMint, the current president of Heritage. I've rewritten a section of DeMint's article to address two different tags on the section and I'd like to have an editor look at my updates due to my COI with this topic. The section I have rewritten is about DeMint's Political positions. You can see my rewritten section on the article's talk page if you think this is something you can help with. Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 19:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I own and operate Playlist.com, which is a streaming music website, a competitor to Pandora and others. The Wikipedia article has out-of-date information. I attempted to change it, but my changes were reverted. I have never edited a Wikipedia article before, and I came to learn that I have a COI. I'm not sure how to go about getting the article updated. There is actually a lot of information that could be added about the history of the company, including disputes and ultimately resolution with the record labels, although candidly I don't have time to author all of that. I am seeking guidance on how to update the article or perhaps even find someone who is willing to update it instead of me.
Can someone take a look at this article? A person contacted me after tags were placed on the article to say that, after repeated deletions by one or two editors who appear to have conflict of interest, news reports about certain events were repeatedly removed from the article. This person also reported that several tries were made to reintroduce newsworthy information into the article, but instead ran into instances of repeated deletions by at least one, if not both editors. If that is the case, the actions of editors in question may also be exhibiting issues related to WP:OWN in addition to WP:COI. At present, this article is clearly written as a resume or curriculum vitae for the subject of the article. → Lwalt ♦ talk 00:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)