This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I assessed the article as stub-class, after which the editor contacted me and told me that they have created the article on the subject's request. Adabow ( talk · contribs) 09:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Article is rubbish, I've removed most of the content as unsourced. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Edits promoting Alistair Galpin:
Those are the articles where Rwap has promoted Galpin, there are sometimes multiple edits to some of the articles (either to update the information or edit war to reinsert the promotional language). Every single contribution that Rwap has made to Wikipedia either promote RWAP products (including 3 deleted articles about games created by RWAP Adventures, Sinclair QL Funfear, Sinclair QL Horrorday, and The Prawn), or promote Alastair Galpin, or are arguments defending the promotion of one or the other. I'm indefinitely hard-blocking this editor as a promotional-only account with an inappropriate username, and will be cleaning any remaining promotion out of articles they've contributed to. -- Atama 頭 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
No edits outside this article, CT matches the initials of the website's stated author Christopher Thomas. Definitely passes notability threshold due to non-trivial coverage in a Reader's Digest article, but would like a review to be sure article is NPOV compliant. 2 says you, says two 21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Article has been deleted several times, see AFD. There was a recent recreation by a sock of blocked user Thekohser, who had been offered payment to create the article, see SPI. User BrendaBooker has now requested recreation; the problem is that this editor, as well as a number of IPs (see list above) have been removing or refactoring parts of archived discussions, SPI investigations and warnings connected to SEO 2.0 and to the edits of User:ClintonCimring, whose user name tallies with the person who is credited as having coined the concept "SEO 2.0", and who received multiple warnings for self-interested article creation (see also this previous COIN discussion, which was deleted by one of the IPs a few days ago). To me it looks like an attempt to whitewash the article by attempting to remove traces of problematic history, and I strongly suspect a COI here. Note also the fact that the repeatedly deleted and salted article Clinton Cimring has almost no links leading to it, which makes me believe that speedy deletion warnings have been systematically removed from talk pages, as happened here where a speedy warning was refactored. bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
BrendaBooker ( talk) 22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)BrendaBooker I object to being called a sock puppet. I have no ulterior motives and did not create the SEO 2.0 page. I posted it under my page in case someone would like to recreate it. I substantially re-edited it. What my edits were were letting everyone know who was involved in this subject that I had reposted it.
This editor, who signs some of the files he uploads "William Griffin Gallery"[!], has created or extensively edited articles not only about the gallery of that name, but also about various artists whom the gallery has exhibited, in some cases sourcing the articles to catalogs published by the gallery as well. Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is about a prominent Norwegian politician, former prime minister and now serving as Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. The two users are newly registered and have only been editing this article. To my cursory eye the edits appear to be attempting to remove or drastically downplay any controversial content in the article, and I have already served a COI warning on the talk page of one user. Perhaps others could peek in at this situation also to make sure I'm not jumping the gun here. __ meco ( talk) 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Article is very biased, and was created by a user who has the exact same content on their userpage. Sorry - I don't know what I've done wrong with this post, it doesn't look right. But Porter is primarily noted (notorious, actually) as a dolphin trafficker, not for anything mentioned in the article. There's an unflattering bio of him showing on TV this week, which is probably why the article was created. 207.216.185.111 ( talk) 23:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous IPs consistently edit this article, removing fansite/notability/AFD article tags, adding weak citations, and otherwise making grandiose statements. To me this is a pretty clear case of WP:COI and I'll be watching the article closely.-- Jamiew ( talk) 06:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This user's name seems to be promoting an online company (and he/she has made a CSD'ed article of the same nature). I wasn't sure what to do, so I simply left a note on the user's talk page indicating that the username might be promotional and came here. Clementina talk 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
was an article about a company and that was created by User:Path123, whose username is clearly styled after the article itself (note that I did report him to UAA but was declined). If someone could do a general cleanup of the article to reduce the promotional tone and support it with more references, that would help with the coi. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Shows a severe WP:OWN problem; his/her edits to the article talk page very strongly imply a publicity relationship with the Academy. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
CVSNT article is being written by Arthur Barret, which is a March Hare employee, and it looks more like advertisement than a neutral point of view. Changes made by other users are removed or modified in a way that loooks to suit March Hare commercial interests. Ldsandon ( talk) 10:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Goldline, a precious metals seller, recently reported it has retained Prime Policy Group, a lobbying firm, to help with its public relations [4]. Contemporaneously, a new user with a name phonetically similar to that of the lobbying firm ( Prime Policy Group/Pluxigoop ) has begun editing that Wikipedia article making edits that seem to accentuate the positive while minimizing the negative. I think Pluxigoop may have an undeclared interest in this topic. They have no other edits to other articles. I am not a party to this. I do not edit the article. Abe Froman ( talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems for Civilization V (a computer game) somebody (maybe the company) has a problem with valid, referenced, critism of the product. I have referenced to 200+ reviews of the product on Amazon, reviews posted by real users, and pointed out the high (40%) 1 star reviews and the reasons why. The Wikipedia article points out the results of the 'professinal' reviews and I do not see why the reviews of hundreds of real users do not hold as much, if not more weight then the 'professional' reviews. After all Wikipedia itself is a encyclopedia of an by the people!
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 129.6.221.239 ( talk) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
How on Earth are Amazon reviews not credible??? Yes, you get the occasional 'omg lolz this gam suckz' (though Amazon usually get's rid of something like that), but most reviews, positive and negative, are well thought out. How are the reviews of hundreds of real users not MORE valid then the single review of a couple of people working at a magazine? I know when I go to buy a new game I certinally take into account the 'professional' reviews, but I take into account far more the opinions of the general public at Amazon (or similar). They tend to look at aspects of the game that general users would never look at. And anyway how can you say reviews by the masses are not valid on a wiki site whoes who raison d'etre is that it is created by the people for the people. Well I will keep putting up my part on Wikipedia so that the readers can get the most info they can get, and if you want to keep taking it down I can't stop you, but I urge you to let the people get all the information and make their own decisions. What are you afraid of? BTW, I love the game, just find it incredulous that they would require a program (Steam) that by default opens huge security holes for your computer for a game that can be played as a single player game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.221.239 ( talk) 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I see no evidence of a conflict of interest and suggest this thread end here and resume in a more appropriate location. Rklawton ( talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Winers book. Over a number of months, every editor that has expressed an opinion about it on the World War II article talk page has considered it fringe and/or unreliable, except Communicat. Even recently he continues to refer to it in discussions there. ( Hohum @) 15:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
user keeps adding their website to the article, username is also a concern. Lerdthenerd ( talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This IP address's edits seem suspicious to me, but I don't know what the appropriate action is, since I don't know the editor's identity and therefore don't know if they have a conflict of interest. The IP is based in the Washington, DC suburb of Columbia, Maryland. Articles it has edited include DC think tank Third Way, Third Way member Bill Schneider, Third Way member Jonathan Cowan, and Lead or Leave, an obscure '90s political group led by Cowan. These articles read like PR, with quotes calling Schneider "the Aristotle of American politics" and Third Way "rapidly emerging as Washington’s most important beyond-ideology think tank," while Cowan's "work at Third Way represents the culmination of a life devoted to public service and the advancement of progressive principles." The positivity makes me want to visit Wikipedia for the balanced version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.191.164 ( talk) 08:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Editor since June 2010. Apparently created Proteid Comics which was speedy-deleted in July 2010, but made no further visible edits until 30 Sept. All of his edits are to the above articles which are a comic book series he has authored and three of the characters therein. He has removed {{ COI}} and other tags, and de-prodded the articles. Not sure whether the whole lot is speediable under {{ db-advert}}; no WP:RS found on Google. PamD ( talk) 10:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I fired the main article off to AFD and the rest are prod'd, if they deproded, I'll AFD them as well. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/wrg/1981889879.html Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 68.171.233.214 ( talk) 18:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
69.178.132.146 is registered to the Amen Clinic, and exclusively edits the page on Dr. Amen, without consulting the discussion page despite multiple requests. Many of the changes made by 69.178.132.146 appear to be advertisements, uncited or just generally non-notable miscellanea that would be more appropriate on a resume than on wikipedia. For example, it is not necessary for the article to contain a list of every abstract of every single article ever published by Dr. Amen. Glaucus ( talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The above mentioned user seems to have only contributed to the one article. Furthermore, the addition pertains to a quote indicating what he himself wrote somewhere. The quote had already come into controversy before, and was later reinserted citing "[ Correction of ideological filtering, identification of critical ideas explaining electoral outcomes which even if disputed are part of the history of the election]." It seems at least 2 of his cites are in reference to his own article. Talk:Swedish general election, 2010#Analysis also deals with issues of the problematic edit. It seems pretty odd, and was querying what the best response would be? Lihaas ( talk) 03:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The controversial material was originally
added from an anonymous I.P., and cites
an article written by "Jonathan M. Feldman" on
CounterPunch as source. Wikipedia user
User:JonathanMFeldman has edited the article
before and
after the controversial material was added. All in all, I don't think "point of view" political analysis is not exactly what we are looking for in this article, as
anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. I would support adding neutral analysis of the election result by established, preferably Swedish journalists working for respected politically neutral newspapers to the article, as they are by large the only ones with a verifiable claim to both independence and authority in this matter. The views from the CounterPunch article just do not seem enough notable to be included in the election result analysis section of an encyclopedia article, and have an inferiorly verifiable claim to neutrality compared to the well-established Swedish press. --
hydrox (
talk) 05:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) (edited 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC))
Jonathan Feldman16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman ( talk • contribs)
The problem that you fail to realize is that many persons have accused the Swedish media of systematic bias in covering the elections. Here is what one Swedish politician wrote to my colleage regarding the Swedish media: "Vi har inte media och DN tex har i nära 3 år droppat kritik näst intill dagligen mot Sahlin." The translation, "[The Social Democrats] have no media and Dagens Nyheter for example for almost three years dripped criticism almost daily against [Mona] Sahlin," the Social Democratic prime minister candidate. So your claims about the lack of media bias in respected papers is totally false. Why are academics publishing peer reviewed articles like this one: Strömbäck, Jesper & Shehata, Adam (2007): "Structural Biases in British and Swedish Election News Coverage". Journalism Studies, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 798-812. I think you really have to review the critical academic literature about media bias in newspapers. It is quite extensive. Try starting with Herbert Gans and his book Deciding What's News.
Let us turn to the article cited about by Strömbäck and Shehata. They write: "Election campaigns in advanced democracies are highly mediated events. Thus, the electorate has come to depend upon the media for information regarding the election, the parties and their policies. At the same time, research indicates that the news coverage of elections tends to be structurally biased, in the sense that the media coverage is episodic rather than thematic and that it is focused on the horse race and the political strategies of the competing parties rather than on the issues at stake. However, comparative studies of election news coverage in different countries are still somewhat lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the election news coverage in Britain and Sweden, two countries that are part of different models of media and political systems. The study investigates the election news coverage in two major broadsheets and one major tabloid in each country, during the last three weeks before the Swedish Election in 2002 and the British Election in 2005. The results show several significant differences between the Swedish and the British election news coverage."—Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman ( talk)
JONATHAN FELDMAN REPLIES, THE SAGA CONTINUES
First, I don't deny I added the material from Counterpunch, although someone started playing around with what I wrote so it is hard to figure out what I did and what someone else did. I just don't fully understand or agree with the premise of your complaint. At one point, I think you assume that I am engaged in vanity publishing or that I am trying to promote myself or something. What I am trying to do is to analyze the Swedish election outcome. That is what academics like me do, i.e. they analyze things. If I have first hand understanding of Swedish industrial and immigration policies, having studied them, worked for the Swedish government and interviewed key informants, I would think you would want to benefit from my first hand knowledge. This knowledge is hardly any more suspect or limited than the specific biases introduced by journalists, which I would contend, are considerable. In any case, I don't understand the motivational psychology and epistemology here (if these are the appropriate terms), e.g. is Moses engaging in self-promotion in the Old Testament or Karl Marx in Das Kapital? I've been asked to write encycolopedia articles published by Oxford University Press in which I cite my own work because of my expertise. Oxford University Press is probably the world's leading academic publisher, or one of them. Are you honestly telling me that Wikipedia is a more credible source than Oxford? I don't think so.
On the second point, see above, but note also... At one point, I simply explained something and cited Counterpunch. Then someone started profiling the source Counterpunch, which I thought was supposed to be some kind of official improvement. They only did this profiling with Counterpunch, not The Irish Times, which for some ideologues is kind of a wholy grail. That newspaper, like all others, has its clear biases. See the Wikipedia article on the paper. Yet, this newspaper was not singled out. I tried to provide additional documentation for my views, by providing links to official TV coverage of the last parliamentary debate among other additional sources, but some person took out my entire contribution, even with the additional material. This whole exercise is becoming a tedious war of intellectual attrition. I only engage myself as a kind of test of what Wikipedia really represents. You have to understand that I might have very unique views based on my personal trajectory that are valid, just as valid as that of a journalist. If you can document whree I am wrong, you should try to do that. Instead, you just are fixated on the fact that I have cited myself. Biographies are often used as source material. So this case is no different. A lot of the stuff I have described has never been expressed as such because of various vested interests that are their own source of bias, but that someone in the editorial process seems oblivious to. I tried to modify my contribution as expressing a particular view of the election. Then, someone, said "that's not what we're looking for." Who is "we"? What kind of hierarchy is represented by that statement? I understand the need for quality control, but I wonder about how that is framed. I really think that Wikipedia editors seem to believe that the "left" is biased, but newspapers are not. We know that this is a falsehood, but it seems to have been repeated.
Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
JUST ONE LAST POINT or FELDMAN'S LAST STAND
Excuse me, this sounds a bit like a Kafka story to me. I admitted something which I did not think was a crime, but then the judge says it was a crime and the fact that I concealed what I did not think was a crime only makes something appear just that more suspect. I wonder if this is Kafkapedia, perhaps I could write something for Counterpunch on that using my "personal experiences," which of course are NOT valid...ever, even for walking, I mean I should use a primary source before I put one foot in front of the other. This is a hierarchy because you people decide what goes. There is no consensus between what you think and I think as far as I can tell. You think Counterpunch is biased, but I have showed you newspapers are biased. When I write something it is not simply a subjectivist, biased data filtered through my head. That is some post-Modern nonsense. Philosophy teaches us, particularly materialistic philosophy, that the subjective can reflect the objective. I don't doubt bias, I just think bias is pretty ubiquitous and there is something called pseudo-neutrality. Sartre's theory of contingeny, choices, explains this. I think the least Wikipedia can do is put my article in a footnote so that someone who wants an alternative point of view can find one. You still have not addressed my point, i.e. if an expert in X cites his own work, why is that not valid, if Oxford University Press accepts the standard? JonathanMFeldman ( talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Jonathan Feldman JonathanMFeldman ( talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
User Precious2006 keeps on removing sourced content about Dick Beardsley's filing for bankruptcy. This edit on my talk page shows that user is Beardsley's wife, and claims that this news is causing health problems. That is unfortunate, but news is news. User also left weird message on my talk page asking who I am, and calling me a "coward". I realize that user has also broke 3RR, but the COI seems to be the issue here -- CutOffTies ( talk) 12:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
biodegradable_plastic has been altered so as to be an advertisement for one class of biodegradable plastics. It is completely biased. It completely neglects oxo-biodegradable plastics and micro-biodegradable plastics, which are alternative technologies. This current version is a revision of a more comprehensive edit which included discussion of the alternative biodegradable plastics, their ASTM standards, and the merits and drawbacks of these alternatives to compostable plastics.
See: http://earthnurture.com for more information about alternatives. That website is a commercial website, and it has a point of view, but it does acknowledge all alternatives and it does discuss the standards and merits of the entire spectrum of biodegradable plastics. It is ironic that a commercial website with a point of view should be more informative and less biased than a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junket76 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be mainly written by the PR department of
QSR International and looks more like an ad than a wikipedia page
Dpilat (
talk) 09:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Claims to be their grandchild and is COI editing the article Lerdthenerd ( talk) 09:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Article about local politician has obvious NPOV issues (and possible notability issue). I would clean it up but I have somewhat of a COI, it would be best if I didn't do it myself. Would appreciate if someone could take care of it. Thanks. Evil saltine ( talk) 14:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Filipino Plaza was written by Jayrazon ( talk · contribs). This is quite clearly a person involved in some campaign regarding the park, and he appears to be citing sources about himself, and/or written by himself. Some even refer directly to Wikipedia, for example, “I’ve never been excited in my life. Imagine seeing Filipino Plaza in Wikipedia, this is really wonderful especially to the Filipino Canadians,” Razon said. [33]
I suspect the park is notable, but I'm struggling to keep the NPOV out. I've issued a warning re. COI, but he continued to edit; I have just issued a warning and explanation re. 'advert', asking him to suggest changes on the talkpage.
I could do with help, making sure the article is not being used to promote the campaign. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Previously reported promotional account; original report is now archived at here. Editor's user name implies a conflict of interest with the subject of the article he is promoting. Editor has been warned about COI here. VQuakr ( talk) 06:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Vpolin is engaged in an edit war (this terminology used by both parties) with User:SunAlsoRises regarding the inclusion of certain content on the article. Asserting personal authority in the organization (it can be inferred by username that this user is the "Vicki Polin" mentioned in the article, and she has not denied being such in the talk page discussion), User:Vpolin has requested the removal of the article. The gist of the dispute is fairly easily gleaned by a look at the article's talk page. Some of the commentary has verged on legal threats, but not closely enough to warrant strong action in my view. - Vianello ( Talk) 08:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That article is a BLP nightmare and either needs stubbing or a complete rewrite - it's an attack article in it's current form. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Traceymsu ( talk) 04:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This user has no other edits except to Mediocrity (advertising campaign); while I don't see anything specifically named "daydreaming beige", clearly this is in reference to the advertising campaign. See http://www.subaru.com/content/static/fightmediocrity/index.html to understand why. — Timneu22 · talk 16:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This editor, who openly admits to being the subject of the article, has highjacked what was previously an article and is insisting on turning this into an autobiographical essay with his own carefully-polished self-descriptions ("the wording, which I have been refining for many years is ALL mine"). He refuses to comply with WP:COI, and ignores WP:AUTO, WP:OWN, WP:BLP, WP:RS and all other principles and guidelines. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Holloway, a/k/a User:Ronsax, is now threatening legal action against Leahtwosaints (see the article's talk page). He meanwhile continues to edit the article about himself. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Multiple edits with a self-promotional tone from an IP that is registered to the subject of the article. Simon Brady ( talk) 11:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It is being alleged that this a case where the subject's ex-wife is trashing the subject with NPOV violations. The s.p.a. making the allegations freely admits to being a friend of the family on the subject's side. Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
User William M Connolly is a prominent advocate of a particular stance on climate change, and expends significant effort preventing the expression of facts that are unfavourable to his cause. The recent incident on the Hal Lewis page is a perfect example. WP:RS has been wilfully misused to attempt to prevent mention of a senior physicists condemnation of Connolly (amongst others). This is not an isolated incident, but standard behaviour of the editor in question. 94.170.107.247 ( talk) 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Josh
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 206.53.157.132 ( talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
From the deleted article Black Online News Network
Black Online News Network (BONN) is a digital network of online news portals targeted to African Americans. Its current consists of 100 news websites. [1]
There have been attempts to create articles by the firm itself and by editors hired by it through Freelancer.Com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Black_maaan and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Black_Media_Month&action=history
The BONN group is at http://www.thebonngroup.com/ The site supports itself by selling ads which are placed on all of 100 web sites created by the group; Black Finance Today http://www.africanamericandaily.com/index.php?site_id=87 is typical; it essentially has no traffic http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/africanamericandaily.com despite being advertised as one of "100 popular web sites." See Media Kit.
The one existing article which was created and not deleted has only press releases by the BONN group as references and not enough activity to have an Alexa rating http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/blackmediamonth.com Fred Talk 23:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
There is controversy regarding the authenticity of hip hop artist, Tablo's, graduation report from Stanford and whether he really did in fact graduate with a Degree in English. The Administrator of the main group that is responsible for investigating these claims goes under the nickname of "whatbecomes." The situation regarding the controversy has died down in recent days/weeks as more evidence are mounting in support of Tablo. In the editing history of the article, a person under the nickname "Whatbecomes" has been editing the article to remove such indications of the changing opinions in South Korea towards this issue, towards one of sympathy. There is an obvious conflict of interest, in regards as to the motives of "Whatbecomes" are obviously to stir up more controversy. Korea Herald Article on Controversy ( ShushKebab ( talk) 14:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC))
This diff [34] discloses being the founder of this record label. Kansan ( talk) 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
COI - Autobiography, self serving, not what you would find in an encyclopedia... Should be a personal website or blog... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjenkinsjr ( talk • contribs)
Is inserting links to a website called Fireplace Doctor. Kansan ( talk) 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've made no extensive investigation, but other users have noted issues in edit summaries and on GK's talk page, and GK's edits appear to be non trivial. me_ and 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Found this wiki page to overlap with the person's personal blog: http://mjpianscott.blogspot.com/2008/03/ian-scott-mark-jackson-productions.html Also found it may violate Wikipedia:Notability. 169.229.123.24 ( talk) 21:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is job on http://www.freelancer.com to spam links to http://www.softpicks.net from Wikipedia articles, see http://www.freelancer.com/projects/Link-Building-Blog/Links-from-social-networks.html (You will have to create a free account in order to view this)
Description
I need to write a review about our website and post it on most popular social networks with backward links:
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Linkedin, Classmates, MyLife, Ning, LiveJournal, Tagged. Review should be open for SE bots. Review should be written on languages: English, Spanish, German, French, Italian and posted on appropriate language versions of these websites with appropriate links to our website language versions. Also we need a wikipedia articles on these languages. The main features of the website to be reviewed: "Flash games", "Answers", "DLL downloads", "Driver downloads", "Software downloads". The site URL is www[dot]softpicks[dot]net.
Search for "Softpicks" reveals a few spamming links and mention of the term in a few articles for deletion. There is currently no article " Softpicks". Fred Talk 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The Softpick link is totally useless, because Softpicks is an anonymous hoax website. They don't have any "About Us" section anywhere, they don't say who they are, the only way of contacting them is via the web form (a very common feature of hoax and spammers' websites), the Disclaimer, Terms of Use and other sections are "Under construction". This is not a new tactic in Wikipedia—spammers are constantly trying to put links to hoax websites like this in the hopes of fooling Wikipedians into thinking these references are somehow relevant. But the Softpick link clearly does not count as a reliable source for Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Need4_Video_Converter
Fred Talk 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
User is adding excessive and irrelevant promotional detail about Oakwood Law Group to the article about 40 Wall Street, the landmark building in which it is a tenant. Has also created the (so far unreviewed) article Oakwood Law Group. Note that in January this user created Oakwood Law Group, llp, which was speedy deleted four times. I'm not an admin so I can't see how similar the old and new articles are. -- CliffC ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an advertisement, and all the links surrounding it are simply to promote products made by, and sold by BARIX AG. All the reference links are self promoting as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oemengr ( talk • contribs)
Melse is a teacher at a business college, and a subject-matter expert. He has been filling articles (particularly Momentum Accounting and Triple-Entry Bookkeeping) with links to articles he has written, YouTube videos he has created, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Cantor was offended that I declared he has a conflict of interest on that article. As documented in his biography here, Dr. Cantor is a coauthor of the proposal to introduce hebephilia in the DSM-5. This proposal has received criticism from a number of mental health professionals, look here for a partial list. Dr. Cantor has personally removed one such criticism (sourced to forensic psychologist Karen Franklin) from the article on hebephilia, and added none. Is this edit a violation of WP:COI or not? Tijfo098 ( talk) 23:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The original question is whether this 2008 source should be used to criticize or "de-bunk" the mainstream opinion. If you'll click that link and take a look at the image, you'll see a gray bar at the top of the page that says "LETTER TO THE EDITOR". Letters to the editor, especially when written by a person who had never published professionally on the actual subject in question, fail WP:MEDRS. I think that any impartial editor would have considered this at least a very weak source, and probably an unacceptable one. Basically, if Franklin's opinion is actually a non- WP:FRINGEy criticism, then editors will be able to produce a much better source than a letter to the editor, and if they can't, then I suggest that this inability is itself proof that including the criticism is FRINGEy and WP:UNDUE. As a suggestion, this newly published paper by the same author:
might make the same claims, and as a "research paper" in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it would very probably be an acceptable source.
Additionally, I don't think that warning a professor of psychology for "COI edits" by improving (or trying to) articles within his professional area is compatible with the community's goal of WP:Expert retention. WP:EXPERTs are allowed to edit Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(outdenting) Whatamidoing, please do not edit policy to make it support your position during an open debate [43]. This is the second time I have asked you not to do so [44]. Coincidentally, both times involved discussions about James Cantor's COI. BitterGrey ( talk) 23:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we're being lead off-track by User:WhatamIdoing. The discussion here should be about WP:COI edits. WhatamIdoing hasn't posted anything on the article's talk so far on this topic, or any other topic for that matter [46], but is filling this page with article content issues that are irrelevant on this board. Sorry for giving in to the temptation to reply to some of those, but the attempt to divert this discussion into a WP:MEDRS debate required a detailed rebuttal. Tijfo098 ( talk) 07:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think the reality is that James Cantor repeatedly edits wikipedia in conflict with WP:COI. See here for a preliminary list. I wish he would be more sensitive to this issue, because potentially, he could be a major contributor in this sometimes contentious area because of his expertise. What is required is striking a balance between the two. Unfortunately, I think for the moment, this might be a necessary action, which can easily be reversed once it is obvious that James is editing within the scope of WP:COI. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous editor editing from dynamic IPs has been continually inserting and re-inserting information favourable to the subject of the article that is not supported by the sources. They have ignored a number of efforts to discuss concerns (see User talk:111.220.249.29 and Talk:Patricia Petersen). The article history, particularly the edits around the 5th of June (which led to the page being semi-protected) may be particularly illuminating. -- Lear's Fool 03:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This has been raised before, but doesn't seem fully resolved. The article inflates the subject's notability - the guy is a schoolteacher who has written/cowritten a few niche books - and its editing is dominated by a series of single-purpose IP edits that have solely edited this article and ones pertaining to Paul Spiring's books (see these links : [48]. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 86.141.82.111 ( talk) 09:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Julio Robaina is being edited by new account Juliorobiana ( talk · contribs)...repeated additions of obviously POV material, with concomitant loss of wiki formatting, hasn't been stemmed by reversions and WP:COI/ WP:NPOV warnings. — Scien tizzle 02:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This user has made quite a few edits to the American Automobile Association article, and has not edited any other article. The user's older contributions were copied directly from AAA advertisement pamphlets, but the newer contributions appear to be original promotional material written specifically for the Wikipedia article. Jim ( talk) 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive96#Steven T. Murray, user Osobooks might well be Steven T. Murray, whose article he has edited significantly without including citations (as well as reverting my own edits to the article which were well sourced). Osobooks has not responded to a COI warning placed by another user at User talk:Osobooks, or to the issue I raised at Talk:Steven T. Murray. Mathew5000 ( talk) 03:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The two IP users listed above removed details on KAET's recent financial crisis on, without stating any reason ( [49]), and continued to do so even after their edits were reverted ( [50]).
The original section was well supported with sources from Phoenix newspapers. A WHOIS check of these IPs reveal that they belong to Arizona State University's network. These two IP addresses also have not edited anything outside of KAET.
Since KAET is a part of ASU, it is almost certain that whoever is behind the section blanking works for KAET in some capacity. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I had posted a request for help on COIN on September 7 this year here [51] There is a dispute concerning this article that currently has a COI tag. Several involved authors insist on placing this tag as dissent over article not being deleted as they wished and voted at AfD. Anyhow, many COIN participants contributed to the article at the time, and participant Atama contributed a lot to the talk page discussion. Atama stated “could someone outline the exact problems in the article that need to be addressed in order to remove the COI cleanup tag? The tag isn't supposed to be a permanent mark of shame for an article, nor is it meant to warn about behavioral issues, it is meant to help cleanup the article" Those addressed by that did so. The COI tag proponents’ concerns were addressed, arguments refuted. Atama has since that time not been contributing to WP, I do hope they are ok. Accordingly, the COI tag still stands, as does the impasse. It has been a month and a half. Would someone please uphold the policy and the civil discussion and work done there and remove the COI tag? Thanks in advance. Turqoise 127 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
User has identified himself as a patent lawyer who "tend(s) to contribute and edit articles only for proper attribution and content relative to my clients". User has created two articles with a heavily promotional flavor for inventors with a large number of patents and has engaged in edit warring on the Virtual reality therapy to add promotional information pursuant to (his clients?) patents. Uncle Dick ( talk) 18:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
User, previously reported http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Daniel_G._Amen and warned, has returned and repeated the exact same edits. Has not replied on article or user talk page. Glaucus ( talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I placed a {{db-spam}} tag on Ibiza managment,(has been deleted) and I noticed the creator was called User:Lisa-ibiza. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 07:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
According to this edit, we have an IP who has been editing Chris Stapleton and adding rumors. He says he works for the Jompson Brothers and asks that his material not be deleted, even after I said that we don't allow rumors. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 20:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I previously reported User:SFU Business re edits to SFU Business and the Simon Fraser University article. The same edits that I reversed have been re-made by User:SimonFB1965 which as you will note is Simon F(raser)B(usiness) - 1965 being the founding year of the university. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
User Yudanashi, who identifies himself here as a representative of BIPAC, created an article about this political action group, which reads like pure promotional material for the group. In the past few days, Yudanashi has also begun adding external links to pages on a BIPAC-owned website to many different articles about politicians. A representative sample link goes to a page that promotes not only the candidate but also BIPAC. It seems to me these links violate WP:COI as well as WP:EL. betsythedevine ( talk) 01:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Restarting the indents: I found some reliable sources for a story about BIPAC, whose treasurer turns out to be under federal indictment for vote-buying in Alabama. Yudanashi, who has re-created the deleted article with a bit less puffery than the original version, deleted this less-than-flattering information as well as other BIPAC stories currently making news in Alabama. Since the article is a new one, and Yudanashi and I seem to be the only 2 people editing it, I would like help and guidance from some experienced editor. Yudanashi claims on my talk page that the news stories of Alabama candidates being criticized for donations they got from BIPAC really refer to donations from BIPEC, a different group. I have yet to see a reliable source for that claim. I also take issue with Yudanashi's repeated claims for BIPAC (as it claims for itself) that it is "non-partisan"; check out the list of candidates they support and see how non-partisan you think they are: [57]. betsythedevine ( talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
BIPAC is entitled to support whatever candidates it want. It makes little sense to call your organization "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," terms implying an even-handed approach, on the basis that it has on rare occasions in the past supported a Democrat while spending millions to help Republicans. Wikipedia is meant to convey accurate information about the subjects of its articles; it should not be subverted to give respectability to inaccurate claims that organizations make about themselves. Let me add that disputes such as this are precisely why editors with a WP:COI are discouraged from editing their own articles. Your loyalty as an editor should be to the goal of informing readers. betsythedevine ( talk) 12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
More promotional language: cherry-picking from a very critical Mother Jones article the throwaway comment that BIPAC is "a powerful force" is promotional and misleading. There is an ocean of "nonpartisan" money drowning US elections from major players such as the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove's American Crossroads, American Future Fund. I appreciate that Yudanashi is new to Wikipedia but I would like some consensus here that BIPAC currently rates maybe two paragraphs describing its origins and efforts, paragraphs that should be in NEUTRAL language. betsythedevine ( talk) 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It is quite clear that Yudanashi and 74.96.186.205 should cease editing the article in question. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
A review of this IP's edits shows the majority are devoted to shining up the Ben Greenman article or dropping a mention of Greenman into other articles, recent example here. -- CliffC ( talk) 02:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. We are not sure who to contact about this.
I am, indeed, one of the people behind 13BIt Productions. Many people have asked us why we did not have a wikipedia entry, so we decided to post the basic information about our production company - just the facts.There are already stubs to us on Wikipedia, so we figured we would put a list of our films and the awards we have done, as well as the subjects of our films.
Please let us know how we can comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. We are not interested in doing a puff piece on ourselves, we simply want to get the basic info out there.
Thanks.
Paul
paulv@panix.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulvee ( talk • contribs)
I am watching " Decision Points" George W. Bush's memoir for BLP vandalism and Ted Cohen ( talk · contribs) added an announcement of his book on Bush Into the article. I gave a stearn warning on his talkpage but since I am unable to attend my attention fully to Wikipedia right now to watch this account I am bringing it here for less busy eyes to watch. Considering this author is the one who broke the story of Bush's 1976 DUI arrest I am unsure if there is BLP issue here to with his addition. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Ted Cohen responds, "I would like to know why Crown Books is listed in a Wiki piece announcing bush's new memoir, with an attendant link to the publisher's website. I edited the Wiki article to include my book with a link to my website. I do not understand why what I have posted is considered out of bounds and would appeal to others to make their own judgments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Cohen ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I was reprimanded by "Resident Anthropologist" for inserting as an edit into the Decision Points Wiki piece (the piece promoting George W. Bush's new memoir by Crown Books) a reference to my new Bush memoir. I also included a link to my book's website - since the Wiki piece contained a link to promote Crown Books and Bush's new memoir. I would like others to let us all know why Crown's Wiki promotion is any different from my attempt to get equal space and equal time. Yes, I am the Maine reporter who discovered just weeks before the 2000 presidential election the 1976 arrest records of George W. Bush. Now I have written an imaginative memoir about Bush. The publisher released a new edition Saturday. To be called out for trying to balance Wiki's coverage of Bush's own book with my version of his life is without merit. I would like to know who is overseeing Wiki's balancing of fair reporting. Respectfully submitted, Ted Cohen - author of "Derision Points," 2010, Progressive Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Cohen ( talk • contribs)
Scott Rhodes (stuntman) (Robert G. Griffith) appears to be an autobiography of RGriff1935 ( talk · contribs). Also possible coi with Teel James Glenn. Continues to remove coi and other maintenance templates without resolving many of the articles' issues--these are essentially press releases for performers whose notability may or may not be established. Possible afd candidates? JNW ( talk) 22:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
These two users have been reverting each other for a month or two on and off. Holden adds controversies, which Sam removes, replacing them with a pro-Herbert section, and vice-versa. Sam has accused Holden of working for a rival campaign, and I suspect that Sam works or is affiliated with Herbert's campaign. They have both received warnings on their talk pages, but have not stopped. As one who doesn't like getting involved in disputes such as this one, I ask for assistance in remedying this drawn-out revert war. Spalds ( talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
After I read an article about Wolk's lawsuits, I looked him up and found his Wikipedia article. If you Google Wolk, the top links are all about his libel lawsuits, but they were not mentioned on Wikipedia.
As these secondary reliable sources discuss, Arthur Wolk has sued dozens of people for libel just for mentioning court decisions that have talked about him, and I don't want to be one of them, so I'd like to be an anonymous editor.
Another editor says that this means I have a conflict of interest with Wolk because I want to be anonymous and not sued. I don't think that not wanting to be sued is a conflict of interest. I have done nothing but cite reliable sources. Can someone check my edits on these articles and see if I have written neutrally? If so, can you remove the COI tag? If not, please make the articles fair, and I will abide by your decision. Thank you.
(The owner of the Arthur Wolk article says that he works with Arthur Wolk, and is deleting reliably sourced information about him and turning the article into a press release. I don't understand why that's not a conflict of interest.) Boo the puppy ( talk) 12:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI: http://www.makemoneybloggingschool.com/index.php/how-to-get-a-link-from-wikipedia-to-your-blog/
When you are trying to use Wikipedia to create links you will need to find a suitable page. The best way of doing this is to choose a Wikipedia page which isn’t updated regularly. This will make it possible to keep your links there for as long as possible.
Fred Talk 00:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/?title=Special:LinkSearch Fred Talk 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
On Recent Changes patrol I came across T. Hayden Barnes written by User:Thbarnes whom appears to be (and has identified himself on Talk:T. Hayden Barnes as being the article's subject. Looking into the contributions I found he has added information about a lawsuit he involved with at Valdosta State University as well as making an article about the lawyer representing him: Robert Corn-Revere. I'm hoping this COI problem can be resolved peacefully, as I didn't notice the complex issue when I tagged the subject's own article. - Warthog Demon 04:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I need a few people eyes on Alan Page it was invaded by Lbln.88 ( talk · contribs), a single purpose account only used to promote Alan Page reputation. I just caught the user socking on commons uploading copyvios that were deleted here. Thanks Secret account 22:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
125.19.51.106 ( talk · contribs), which is shown to be registered to Indiabulls, is removing information in the Indiabulls article which the company might not like to be there, but does appear to be sourced. Corvus cornix talk 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Rabbi Pinto Beobjectiveplease User Beobjectiveplease should be banned. Please assist. He only comments on this article and should not be editing this site and doing nothing else. Clear sockpuppetry. Please assist. 68.173.122.113 ( talk) 06:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry means that this individual is whitewashing details on Pinto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 ( talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Lots of edits to his own article, said on his talk page that it is him and has been warned about COI however continued to edit. methecooldude Contact 10:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Paid editor; see Talk:Rick Webb: "Watco Companies has hired me to set this up for them".. Hairhorn ( talk) 13:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The editor declares on his user page that he is involved with Guiness World Records. He obviously has a lot of expertise that could be very valuable for the encyclopedia, but in his work on Longevity myths and related articles, he seems to be too close to the subject to see the wood for the trees. It is all just messy. There is a medcab case open, and I made a merge proposal. I came to it from WP:FTN, and am not the only person concerned about the quality of these articles. I'm hoping that the COI question can be addressed effectively but without completely alienating this expert editor. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Longevity myths
What on earth do we do? The article is battled between two sides, and each seems to be as mistaken as the other. (tears at hair) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, the editor she posted this message to (Grismaldo) ended up on the merge discussion. Ryoung122 15:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As for my essay, it's been published online and won a national award as a thesis, and published as a book. But in reality it did little more than to more clearly state and merge in one place what had been said for years in separate accounts. We find articles about the myths of longevity in Russia, in Japan, etc. It's not simply the colloquial myth: the stories of Japanese longevity related to the emperors and the crypto-historical founding of Japan in 660 BC (when in was in fact closer to 420 AD). In Russia, the myths of longevity are collective, group myths, that are intertwined with religious and ethnic beliefs, just as are stories of extreme longevity in the Bible.
And if recent claims to be extreme age are also called "myths," there's a reason the word is plural.
I have a solution. Let's withdraw the merge proposal, and then we need a discussion between the "scientific" POV and the "Christian" point of view. It may be as simple as renaming the article "longevity myths and traditions" and then everyone can assume/presume whether Methuselah is a "myth" or "tradition" (or both). Ryoung122 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoa! An IP claims that Robert Young is blatantly breaking canvassing rules! If a user with access can confirm this, he'd better retract quick if he wants to stay on this IMHO. I'll chime in later with relevant history. O Fenian is right on point, but that is just one way that WP:WOP operates as an arm of GRG/OHB/GWR interests rather than WP interests. JJB 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Previous appearance on this noticeboard
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Longevity myths, Longevity claims, etc.
He used to have his own article, now deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(gerontologist)
He's a suspected sockpuppeteer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ryoung122
Discussions at ANI too.
I just did a search on Ryoung122 and then checked "Everything" to get the WP pages up.
In one case the arb Carcaroth said he could work with him, so perhaps we should drop him a line about it. I'm about to go off-wiki. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Board, is this well-formed, well-evidenced case going to go the way of the last one, where COI was found unequivocally and then ... nothing whatsoever happened? Thank you. JJB 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Update He is now trying to use his own master's thesis as proof that the article discusses a viable subject matter. See here. There is a clear COI here. Griswaldo ( talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Remark: Related case at Mediation Cabal located here Netalarm talk 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose a result of toothless board and a finding of an open door to a next WP:DR step. E.g., mediation cabal may have just reopened and I'll try that awhiles. Other prognoses invited. JJB 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to have it in one place, Longevitydude deleted my request from his talk page. I asked him again [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian supercentenarians here] after he made another GRG-dependent comment. There are other issues inappropriate to mention here. JJB 19:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC) He has now answered and is looking into his own COI issues himself. JJB 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion: I have proposed some COI handling options at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. Please continue there. JJB 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This user states he's director of online marketing at TV Guide, and is aware of the guidelines on conflict of interest, "I've carefully read all of Wikipedia's guidelines, and completely understand that any promotion or links back to TV Guide made by me, my staff or anyone at TV Guide for marketing purposes is in violation of those guidelines." as is all stated on his user page. Despite that the user has been adding unneeded references to already aired episode to TV Guide, and replacing references to other websites with TV Guide equivalents. Basically every edit this user makes has been adding TV Guide links and references, although some with valid content, but as of late more pushing TV Guide in favor of other valid websites and unnecessarily adding it. This is basically advertisement for the company he works for. Xeworlebi ( talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
When you are on the list of british high commissoners to india and you click on Sir david goodall, it goes to the wrong David goodall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrygre ( talk • contribs)
-- JN 466 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: This report uses only data from on-Wikipedia, and declarations and self-disclosures made on-Wikipedia.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 14:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 14:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Recently, User:THF has made a statement at User talk:THF#COI clarification needed agreeing to take a step back. Will Beback and Jehochman have explained what the matter is. Since THF has agreed not to continue in this vein, I propose that we consider the COI matter resolved. THF's comments about the filing here by Cirt as being a violation of WP:HARASS are in my opinion not justified. Cirt's COIN filing above, though it is vigorously worded, in my opinion is a correct use of normal procedures. Legal threats are usually made in talk space not article space. The fact that THF was not editing articles directly doesn't avoid the COI problem (bringing an off-wiki connection with the subject of the article into the wiki). EdJohnston ( talk) 00:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Kelly2357 ( talk) 06:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Animal rights wiki admins (and general editors) are censoring and deleting content on this page. We need netural mods to help the page (who do not have a vegan agenda)
Vegan animal rights activists at 30bananas forum have committed to hijacking the Wikipedia page on the China Study (seemingly in cahoots with some of the editors), removing any mention of the most relevant critiques of the book. You can see what tampering has been done on the revision history of the page.
To give you an idea of what we are up against check out the comments from a 30 bananas member below:
"I am sorry if this request lands in the wrong thread, but please alert all VEGAN Wikipedia editors and admins of this (if you know any)! "Denise Minger" is very likely a large scale underground defamation campaign against Dr.Campbell! No matter if she is a real person or not, this is no "private blogger". I wrote already to Dr.Campbell himself, I hope there will be more awareness of the case. But what is essential is urgent protection and following up on the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study Please do not take this lightly. This is a war somebody is leading on, but it can be stopped by focused and clear approach at the major concentration points (like the Wikipedia). Please consider adding this possibility to your agenda and to support the Wikipedia article on a daily base."
"I just come back from the Wikipedia with a small first victory :) I was alerting many (vegan) admins and long term editors, and other people were on the move as well, and finally one of THE major Wikipedia admins, who happens to be vegan, is now watching over the article. ALL the "Denis Minger" blah got removed :) Plus some of the other only blog published, not peer-reviewed and not in the least scientifically backed nonsense too!"
References: http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/official-responses-to-the?commentId=2684079:Comment:739324&groupId=2684079:Group:628512 http://foodfloraandfelines.blogspot.com/2010/10/vegan-propaganda-campbell-vs-minger.html
Thank you for your help, I believe Wikipedia should be a fair place Kelly
What about the reviews from all the other critiques? The medical doctors, the professors and the nutrition experts? These all have references that are not from blog websites. but still, all these edits were censored or removed.
It seems you only need strong news like references if the material is 'likely to be challenged' ... posting someone's review or criticism of a book should not be challenged. see WP:CHALLENGE
What is there to challenge about a book review from another expert in the same field? I do not understand why you would challenge that the critiques never said this? It’s only when you state something like “80% of red heads are colour-blind” that you need to cite a strong reference, as that of course is likely to be challenged (as it simply is not true) whereas it is true that these professors and doctors did say these things about the book.
Sorry if my n00bness is frustrating you, I'm just trying to understand the issues & rules Kelly2357 ( talk) 07:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of interest by User:Danieldis47 and User:Etalssrs (possibly the same user, or associates) discovered by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry as per this AfD, which is how I first found out about it. The creator of the article works as a "communication consultant", and has admitted on Twitter that he was being paid to write Wikipedia articles. Going through his contributions, most of his new articles seem to be of borderline notability, but his contributions have avoided scrutiny since he is familiar with the Manual of Style. I'm relatively new to this proccess, so I'm not very familiar with the correct course of action or the particulars of WP:COI on what should be done. His earlier contributions seem to be innocuous, but his newer ones stray farther away from his field of interest and are suspicious.-- res Laozi speak 13:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Explanation of the situation = self-explanatory, from the links above. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 07:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This seems very implausible: Christopher Connor is a fifty-something American executive with Sherwin-Williams, and User:Christopher Connor is a British snooker fan with a wide variety of editing interests, none of which have to do with paint. And the article in question doesn't even read like an autobiography. Far more likely that the Wikipedia user had an interest in the famous person who shared the same name--a name that isn't all that unusual. Anyone who was following WP:AGF and doing a smidgen of due diligence would have no reason to suspect COI violation, so I'm not surprised that a longtime TDYK participant treated the COI inquiry as a joke. (And in the unlikely event that a multi-millionaire executive spent three years contributing to Wikipedia under a false persona but real name in the hopes of fooling me when writing his autobiography, that's still probably a net gain to Wikipedia that we shouldn't discourage.) THF ( talk) 08:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
From what I can gather by reading the policies and guidelines, there's no obligation for me to say anything. Other people have commented that the article is within policy and so there's nothing more to be said in this thread. Christopher Connor ( talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm marking this as resolved as the article is neutral and CC has stated it is not about them. SmartSE ( talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the Lyfjahonnun group has created a new account. Since we used a spamblock and not a softerblock for username only, that raises the issue about their new account and continued introduction of material. We may need a subject matter expert in order to figure out whether these contributions are constructive or not.
Then there's the original article:
Gigs ( talk) 19:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on a slew of high school articles in Arizona of late: 13 school stubs and three district articles, mostly in the past few days.
One of the schools on my target list to improve (many are stub creation efforts for schools with enrollments that are pretty high: 1,500 for instance, with the exception being Camp Verde High School) is Seton Catholic High School.
This article needs a bit of work – and I know because I attend said institution:
Would it be OK to make this information change (in line with work I have done for other school articles), provided I keep to WP:NPOV etc.? Today marks my 5th anniversary as a Wikipedia editor, by the way, so I think I can do this. Raymie ( t • c) 05:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I assessed the article as stub-class, after which the editor contacted me and told me that they have created the article on the subject's request. Adabow ( talk · contribs) 09:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Article is rubbish, I've removed most of the content as unsourced. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Edits promoting Alistair Galpin:
Those are the articles where Rwap has promoted Galpin, there are sometimes multiple edits to some of the articles (either to update the information or edit war to reinsert the promotional language). Every single contribution that Rwap has made to Wikipedia either promote RWAP products (including 3 deleted articles about games created by RWAP Adventures, Sinclair QL Funfear, Sinclair QL Horrorday, and The Prawn), or promote Alastair Galpin, or are arguments defending the promotion of one or the other. I'm indefinitely hard-blocking this editor as a promotional-only account with an inappropriate username, and will be cleaning any remaining promotion out of articles they've contributed to. -- Atama 頭 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
No edits outside this article, CT matches the initials of the website's stated author Christopher Thomas. Definitely passes notability threshold due to non-trivial coverage in a Reader's Digest article, but would like a review to be sure article is NPOV compliant. 2 says you, says two 21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Article has been deleted several times, see AFD. There was a recent recreation by a sock of blocked user Thekohser, who had been offered payment to create the article, see SPI. User BrendaBooker has now requested recreation; the problem is that this editor, as well as a number of IPs (see list above) have been removing or refactoring parts of archived discussions, SPI investigations and warnings connected to SEO 2.0 and to the edits of User:ClintonCimring, whose user name tallies with the person who is credited as having coined the concept "SEO 2.0", and who received multiple warnings for self-interested article creation (see also this previous COIN discussion, which was deleted by one of the IPs a few days ago). To me it looks like an attempt to whitewash the article by attempting to remove traces of problematic history, and I strongly suspect a COI here. Note also the fact that the repeatedly deleted and salted article Clinton Cimring has almost no links leading to it, which makes me believe that speedy deletion warnings have been systematically removed from talk pages, as happened here where a speedy warning was refactored. bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
BrendaBooker ( talk) 22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)BrendaBooker I object to being called a sock puppet. I have no ulterior motives and did not create the SEO 2.0 page. I posted it under my page in case someone would like to recreate it. I substantially re-edited it. What my edits were were letting everyone know who was involved in this subject that I had reposted it.
This editor, who signs some of the files he uploads "William Griffin Gallery"[!], has created or extensively edited articles not only about the gallery of that name, but also about various artists whom the gallery has exhibited, in some cases sourcing the articles to catalogs published by the gallery as well. Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is about a prominent Norwegian politician, former prime minister and now serving as Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. The two users are newly registered and have only been editing this article. To my cursory eye the edits appear to be attempting to remove or drastically downplay any controversial content in the article, and I have already served a COI warning on the talk page of one user. Perhaps others could peek in at this situation also to make sure I'm not jumping the gun here. __ meco ( talk) 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Article is very biased, and was created by a user who has the exact same content on their userpage. Sorry - I don't know what I've done wrong with this post, it doesn't look right. But Porter is primarily noted (notorious, actually) as a dolphin trafficker, not for anything mentioned in the article. There's an unflattering bio of him showing on TV this week, which is probably why the article was created. 207.216.185.111 ( talk) 23:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous IPs consistently edit this article, removing fansite/notability/AFD article tags, adding weak citations, and otherwise making grandiose statements. To me this is a pretty clear case of WP:COI and I'll be watching the article closely.-- Jamiew ( talk) 06:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This user's name seems to be promoting an online company (and he/she has made a CSD'ed article of the same nature). I wasn't sure what to do, so I simply left a note on the user's talk page indicating that the username might be promotional and came here. Clementina talk 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
was an article about a company and that was created by User:Path123, whose username is clearly styled after the article itself (note that I did report him to UAA but was declined). If someone could do a general cleanup of the article to reduce the promotional tone and support it with more references, that would help with the coi. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Shows a severe WP:OWN problem; his/her edits to the article talk page very strongly imply a publicity relationship with the Academy. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
CVSNT article is being written by Arthur Barret, which is a March Hare employee, and it looks more like advertisement than a neutral point of view. Changes made by other users are removed or modified in a way that loooks to suit March Hare commercial interests. Ldsandon ( talk) 10:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Goldline, a precious metals seller, recently reported it has retained Prime Policy Group, a lobbying firm, to help with its public relations [4]. Contemporaneously, a new user with a name phonetically similar to that of the lobbying firm ( Prime Policy Group/Pluxigoop ) has begun editing that Wikipedia article making edits that seem to accentuate the positive while minimizing the negative. I think Pluxigoop may have an undeclared interest in this topic. They have no other edits to other articles. I am not a party to this. I do not edit the article. Abe Froman ( talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems for Civilization V (a computer game) somebody (maybe the company) has a problem with valid, referenced, critism of the product. I have referenced to 200+ reviews of the product on Amazon, reviews posted by real users, and pointed out the high (40%) 1 star reviews and the reasons why. The Wikipedia article points out the results of the 'professinal' reviews and I do not see why the reviews of hundreds of real users do not hold as much, if not more weight then the 'professional' reviews. After all Wikipedia itself is a encyclopedia of an by the people!
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 129.6.221.239 ( talk) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
How on Earth are Amazon reviews not credible??? Yes, you get the occasional 'omg lolz this gam suckz' (though Amazon usually get's rid of something like that), but most reviews, positive and negative, are well thought out. How are the reviews of hundreds of real users not MORE valid then the single review of a couple of people working at a magazine? I know when I go to buy a new game I certinally take into account the 'professional' reviews, but I take into account far more the opinions of the general public at Amazon (or similar). They tend to look at aspects of the game that general users would never look at. And anyway how can you say reviews by the masses are not valid on a wiki site whoes who raison d'etre is that it is created by the people for the people. Well I will keep putting up my part on Wikipedia so that the readers can get the most info they can get, and if you want to keep taking it down I can't stop you, but I urge you to let the people get all the information and make their own decisions. What are you afraid of? BTW, I love the game, just find it incredulous that they would require a program (Steam) that by default opens huge security holes for your computer for a game that can be played as a single player game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.221.239 ( talk) 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I see no evidence of a conflict of interest and suggest this thread end here and resume in a more appropriate location. Rklawton ( talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Winers book. Over a number of months, every editor that has expressed an opinion about it on the World War II article talk page has considered it fringe and/or unreliable, except Communicat. Even recently he continues to refer to it in discussions there. ( Hohum @) 15:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
user keeps adding their website to the article, username is also a concern. Lerdthenerd ( talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This IP address's edits seem suspicious to me, but I don't know what the appropriate action is, since I don't know the editor's identity and therefore don't know if they have a conflict of interest. The IP is based in the Washington, DC suburb of Columbia, Maryland. Articles it has edited include DC think tank Third Way, Third Way member Bill Schneider, Third Way member Jonathan Cowan, and Lead or Leave, an obscure '90s political group led by Cowan. These articles read like PR, with quotes calling Schneider "the Aristotle of American politics" and Third Way "rapidly emerging as Washington’s most important beyond-ideology think tank," while Cowan's "work at Third Way represents the culmination of a life devoted to public service and the advancement of progressive principles." The positivity makes me want to visit Wikipedia for the balanced version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.191.164 ( talk) 08:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Editor since June 2010. Apparently created Proteid Comics which was speedy-deleted in July 2010, but made no further visible edits until 30 Sept. All of his edits are to the above articles which are a comic book series he has authored and three of the characters therein. He has removed {{ COI}} and other tags, and de-prodded the articles. Not sure whether the whole lot is speediable under {{ db-advert}}; no WP:RS found on Google. PamD ( talk) 10:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I fired the main article off to AFD and the rest are prod'd, if they deproded, I'll AFD them as well. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/wrg/1981889879.html Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 68.171.233.214 ( talk) 18:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
69.178.132.146 is registered to the Amen Clinic, and exclusively edits the page on Dr. Amen, without consulting the discussion page despite multiple requests. Many of the changes made by 69.178.132.146 appear to be advertisements, uncited or just generally non-notable miscellanea that would be more appropriate on a resume than on wikipedia. For example, it is not necessary for the article to contain a list of every abstract of every single article ever published by Dr. Amen. Glaucus ( talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The above mentioned user seems to have only contributed to the one article. Furthermore, the addition pertains to a quote indicating what he himself wrote somewhere. The quote had already come into controversy before, and was later reinserted citing "[ Correction of ideological filtering, identification of critical ideas explaining electoral outcomes which even if disputed are part of the history of the election]." It seems at least 2 of his cites are in reference to his own article. Talk:Swedish general election, 2010#Analysis also deals with issues of the problematic edit. It seems pretty odd, and was querying what the best response would be? Lihaas ( talk) 03:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The controversial material was originally
added from an anonymous I.P., and cites
an article written by "Jonathan M. Feldman" on
CounterPunch as source. Wikipedia user
User:JonathanMFeldman has edited the article
before and
after the controversial material was added. All in all, I don't think "point of view" political analysis is not exactly what we are looking for in this article, as
anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. I would support adding neutral analysis of the election result by established, preferably Swedish journalists working for respected politically neutral newspapers to the article, as they are by large the only ones with a verifiable claim to both independence and authority in this matter. The views from the CounterPunch article just do not seem enough notable to be included in the election result analysis section of an encyclopedia article, and have an inferiorly verifiable claim to neutrality compared to the well-established Swedish press. --
hydrox (
talk) 05:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) (edited 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC))
Jonathan Feldman16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman ( talk • contribs)
The problem that you fail to realize is that many persons have accused the Swedish media of systematic bias in covering the elections. Here is what one Swedish politician wrote to my colleage regarding the Swedish media: "Vi har inte media och DN tex har i nära 3 år droppat kritik näst intill dagligen mot Sahlin." The translation, "[The Social Democrats] have no media and Dagens Nyheter for example for almost three years dripped criticism almost daily against [Mona] Sahlin," the Social Democratic prime minister candidate. So your claims about the lack of media bias in respected papers is totally false. Why are academics publishing peer reviewed articles like this one: Strömbäck, Jesper & Shehata, Adam (2007): "Structural Biases in British and Swedish Election News Coverage". Journalism Studies, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 798-812. I think you really have to review the critical academic literature about media bias in newspapers. It is quite extensive. Try starting with Herbert Gans and his book Deciding What's News.
Let us turn to the article cited about by Strömbäck and Shehata. They write: "Election campaigns in advanced democracies are highly mediated events. Thus, the electorate has come to depend upon the media for information regarding the election, the parties and their policies. At the same time, research indicates that the news coverage of elections tends to be structurally biased, in the sense that the media coverage is episodic rather than thematic and that it is focused on the horse race and the political strategies of the competing parties rather than on the issues at stake. However, comparative studies of election news coverage in different countries are still somewhat lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the election news coverage in Britain and Sweden, two countries that are part of different models of media and political systems. The study investigates the election news coverage in two major broadsheets and one major tabloid in each country, during the last three weeks before the Swedish Election in 2002 and the British Election in 2005. The results show several significant differences between the Swedish and the British election news coverage."—Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman ( talk)
JONATHAN FELDMAN REPLIES, THE SAGA CONTINUES
First, I don't deny I added the material from Counterpunch, although someone started playing around with what I wrote so it is hard to figure out what I did and what someone else did. I just don't fully understand or agree with the premise of your complaint. At one point, I think you assume that I am engaged in vanity publishing or that I am trying to promote myself or something. What I am trying to do is to analyze the Swedish election outcome. That is what academics like me do, i.e. they analyze things. If I have first hand understanding of Swedish industrial and immigration policies, having studied them, worked for the Swedish government and interviewed key informants, I would think you would want to benefit from my first hand knowledge. This knowledge is hardly any more suspect or limited than the specific biases introduced by journalists, which I would contend, are considerable. In any case, I don't understand the motivational psychology and epistemology here (if these are the appropriate terms), e.g. is Moses engaging in self-promotion in the Old Testament or Karl Marx in Das Kapital? I've been asked to write encycolopedia articles published by Oxford University Press in which I cite my own work because of my expertise. Oxford University Press is probably the world's leading academic publisher, or one of them. Are you honestly telling me that Wikipedia is a more credible source than Oxford? I don't think so.
On the second point, see above, but note also... At one point, I simply explained something and cited Counterpunch. Then someone started profiling the source Counterpunch, which I thought was supposed to be some kind of official improvement. They only did this profiling with Counterpunch, not The Irish Times, which for some ideologues is kind of a wholy grail. That newspaper, like all others, has its clear biases. See the Wikipedia article on the paper. Yet, this newspaper was not singled out. I tried to provide additional documentation for my views, by providing links to official TV coverage of the last parliamentary debate among other additional sources, but some person took out my entire contribution, even with the additional material. This whole exercise is becoming a tedious war of intellectual attrition. I only engage myself as a kind of test of what Wikipedia really represents. You have to understand that I might have very unique views based on my personal trajectory that are valid, just as valid as that of a journalist. If you can document whree I am wrong, you should try to do that. Instead, you just are fixated on the fact that I have cited myself. Biographies are often used as source material. So this case is no different. A lot of the stuff I have described has never been expressed as such because of various vested interests that are their own source of bias, but that someone in the editorial process seems oblivious to. I tried to modify my contribution as expressing a particular view of the election. Then, someone, said "that's not what we're looking for." Who is "we"? What kind of hierarchy is represented by that statement? I understand the need for quality control, but I wonder about how that is framed. I really think that Wikipedia editors seem to believe that the "left" is biased, but newspapers are not. We know that this is a falsehood, but it seems to have been repeated.
Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
JUST ONE LAST POINT or FELDMAN'S LAST STAND
Excuse me, this sounds a bit like a Kafka story to me. I admitted something which I did not think was a crime, but then the judge says it was a crime and the fact that I concealed what I did not think was a crime only makes something appear just that more suspect. I wonder if this is Kafkapedia, perhaps I could write something for Counterpunch on that using my "personal experiences," which of course are NOT valid...ever, even for walking, I mean I should use a primary source before I put one foot in front of the other. This is a hierarchy because you people decide what goes. There is no consensus between what you think and I think as far as I can tell. You think Counterpunch is biased, but I have showed you newspapers are biased. When I write something it is not simply a subjectivist, biased data filtered through my head. That is some post-Modern nonsense. Philosophy teaches us, particularly materialistic philosophy, that the subjective can reflect the objective. I don't doubt bias, I just think bias is pretty ubiquitous and there is something called pseudo-neutrality. Sartre's theory of contingeny, choices, explains this. I think the least Wikipedia can do is put my article in a footnote so that someone who wants an alternative point of view can find one. You still have not addressed my point, i.e. if an expert in X cites his own work, why is that not valid, if Oxford University Press accepts the standard? JonathanMFeldman ( talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Jonathan Feldman JonathanMFeldman ( talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
User Precious2006 keeps on removing sourced content about Dick Beardsley's filing for bankruptcy. This edit on my talk page shows that user is Beardsley's wife, and claims that this news is causing health problems. That is unfortunate, but news is news. User also left weird message on my talk page asking who I am, and calling me a "coward". I realize that user has also broke 3RR, but the COI seems to be the issue here -- CutOffTies ( talk) 12:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
biodegradable_plastic has been altered so as to be an advertisement for one class of biodegradable plastics. It is completely biased. It completely neglects oxo-biodegradable plastics and micro-biodegradable plastics, which are alternative technologies. This current version is a revision of a more comprehensive edit which included discussion of the alternative biodegradable plastics, their ASTM standards, and the merits and drawbacks of these alternatives to compostable plastics.
See: http://earthnurture.com for more information about alternatives. That website is a commercial website, and it has a point of view, but it does acknowledge all alternatives and it does discuss the standards and merits of the entire spectrum of biodegradable plastics. It is ironic that a commercial website with a point of view should be more informative and less biased than a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junket76 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be mainly written by the PR department of
QSR International and looks more like an ad than a wikipedia page
Dpilat (
talk) 09:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Claims to be their grandchild and is COI editing the article Lerdthenerd ( talk) 09:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Article about local politician has obvious NPOV issues (and possible notability issue). I would clean it up but I have somewhat of a COI, it would be best if I didn't do it myself. Would appreciate if someone could take care of it. Thanks. Evil saltine ( talk) 14:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Filipino Plaza was written by Jayrazon ( talk · contribs). This is quite clearly a person involved in some campaign regarding the park, and he appears to be citing sources about himself, and/or written by himself. Some even refer directly to Wikipedia, for example, “I’ve never been excited in my life. Imagine seeing Filipino Plaza in Wikipedia, this is really wonderful especially to the Filipino Canadians,” Razon said. [33]
I suspect the park is notable, but I'm struggling to keep the NPOV out. I've issued a warning re. COI, but he continued to edit; I have just issued a warning and explanation re. 'advert', asking him to suggest changes on the talkpage.
I could do with help, making sure the article is not being used to promote the campaign. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Previously reported promotional account; original report is now archived at here. Editor's user name implies a conflict of interest with the subject of the article he is promoting. Editor has been warned about COI here. VQuakr ( talk) 06:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Vpolin is engaged in an edit war (this terminology used by both parties) with User:SunAlsoRises regarding the inclusion of certain content on the article. Asserting personal authority in the organization (it can be inferred by username that this user is the "Vicki Polin" mentioned in the article, and she has not denied being such in the talk page discussion), User:Vpolin has requested the removal of the article. The gist of the dispute is fairly easily gleaned by a look at the article's talk page. Some of the commentary has verged on legal threats, but not closely enough to warrant strong action in my view. - Vianello ( Talk) 08:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That article is a BLP nightmare and either needs stubbing or a complete rewrite - it's an attack article in it's current form. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Traceymsu ( talk) 04:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This user has no other edits except to Mediocrity (advertising campaign); while I don't see anything specifically named "daydreaming beige", clearly this is in reference to the advertising campaign. See http://www.subaru.com/content/static/fightmediocrity/index.html to understand why. — Timneu22 · talk 16:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This editor, who openly admits to being the subject of the article, has highjacked what was previously an article and is insisting on turning this into an autobiographical essay with his own carefully-polished self-descriptions ("the wording, which I have been refining for many years is ALL mine"). He refuses to comply with WP:COI, and ignores WP:AUTO, WP:OWN, WP:BLP, WP:RS and all other principles and guidelines. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Holloway, a/k/a User:Ronsax, is now threatening legal action against Leahtwosaints (see the article's talk page). He meanwhile continues to edit the article about himself. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Multiple edits with a self-promotional tone from an IP that is registered to the subject of the article. Simon Brady ( talk) 11:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It is being alleged that this a case where the subject's ex-wife is trashing the subject with NPOV violations. The s.p.a. making the allegations freely admits to being a friend of the family on the subject's side. Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
User William M Connolly is a prominent advocate of a particular stance on climate change, and expends significant effort preventing the expression of facts that are unfavourable to his cause. The recent incident on the Hal Lewis page is a perfect example. WP:RS has been wilfully misused to attempt to prevent mention of a senior physicists condemnation of Connolly (amongst others). This is not an isolated incident, but standard behaviour of the editor in question. 94.170.107.247 ( talk) 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Josh
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 206.53.157.132 ( talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
From the deleted article Black Online News Network
Black Online News Network (BONN) is a digital network of online news portals targeted to African Americans. Its current consists of 100 news websites. [1]
There have been attempts to create articles by the firm itself and by editors hired by it through Freelancer.Com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Black_maaan and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Black_Media_Month&action=history
The BONN group is at http://www.thebonngroup.com/ The site supports itself by selling ads which are placed on all of 100 web sites created by the group; Black Finance Today http://www.africanamericandaily.com/index.php?site_id=87 is typical; it essentially has no traffic http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/africanamericandaily.com despite being advertised as one of "100 popular web sites." See Media Kit.
The one existing article which was created and not deleted has only press releases by the BONN group as references and not enough activity to have an Alexa rating http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/blackmediamonth.com Fred Talk 23:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
There is controversy regarding the authenticity of hip hop artist, Tablo's, graduation report from Stanford and whether he really did in fact graduate with a Degree in English. The Administrator of the main group that is responsible for investigating these claims goes under the nickname of "whatbecomes." The situation regarding the controversy has died down in recent days/weeks as more evidence are mounting in support of Tablo. In the editing history of the article, a person under the nickname "Whatbecomes" has been editing the article to remove such indications of the changing opinions in South Korea towards this issue, towards one of sympathy. There is an obvious conflict of interest, in regards as to the motives of "Whatbecomes" are obviously to stir up more controversy. Korea Herald Article on Controversy ( ShushKebab ( talk) 14:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC))
This diff [34] discloses being the founder of this record label. Kansan ( talk) 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
COI - Autobiography, self serving, not what you would find in an encyclopedia... Should be a personal website or blog... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjenkinsjr ( talk • contribs)
Is inserting links to a website called Fireplace Doctor. Kansan ( talk) 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've made no extensive investigation, but other users have noted issues in edit summaries and on GK's talk page, and GK's edits appear to be non trivial. me_ and 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Found this wiki page to overlap with the person's personal blog: http://mjpianscott.blogspot.com/2008/03/ian-scott-mark-jackson-productions.html Also found it may violate Wikipedia:Notability. 169.229.123.24 ( talk) 21:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is job on http://www.freelancer.com to spam links to http://www.softpicks.net from Wikipedia articles, see http://www.freelancer.com/projects/Link-Building-Blog/Links-from-social-networks.html (You will have to create a free account in order to view this)
Description
I need to write a review about our website and post it on most popular social networks with backward links:
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Linkedin, Classmates, MyLife, Ning, LiveJournal, Tagged. Review should be open for SE bots. Review should be written on languages: English, Spanish, German, French, Italian and posted on appropriate language versions of these websites with appropriate links to our website language versions. Also we need a wikipedia articles on these languages. The main features of the website to be reviewed: "Flash games", "Answers", "DLL downloads", "Driver downloads", "Software downloads". The site URL is www[dot]softpicks[dot]net.
Search for "Softpicks" reveals a few spamming links and mention of the term in a few articles for deletion. There is currently no article " Softpicks". Fred Talk 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The Softpick link is totally useless, because Softpicks is an anonymous hoax website. They don't have any "About Us" section anywhere, they don't say who they are, the only way of contacting them is via the web form (a very common feature of hoax and spammers' websites), the Disclaimer, Terms of Use and other sections are "Under construction". This is not a new tactic in Wikipedia—spammers are constantly trying to put links to hoax websites like this in the hopes of fooling Wikipedians into thinking these references are somehow relevant. But the Softpick link clearly does not count as a reliable source for Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Need4_Video_Converter
Fred Talk 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
User is adding excessive and irrelevant promotional detail about Oakwood Law Group to the article about 40 Wall Street, the landmark building in which it is a tenant. Has also created the (so far unreviewed) article Oakwood Law Group. Note that in January this user created Oakwood Law Group, llp, which was speedy deleted four times. I'm not an admin so I can't see how similar the old and new articles are. -- CliffC ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an advertisement, and all the links surrounding it are simply to promote products made by, and sold by BARIX AG. All the reference links are self promoting as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oemengr ( talk • contribs)
Melse is a teacher at a business college, and a subject-matter expert. He has been filling articles (particularly Momentum Accounting and Triple-Entry Bookkeeping) with links to articles he has written, YouTube videos he has created, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Cantor was offended that I declared he has a conflict of interest on that article. As documented in his biography here, Dr. Cantor is a coauthor of the proposal to introduce hebephilia in the DSM-5. This proposal has received criticism from a number of mental health professionals, look here for a partial list. Dr. Cantor has personally removed one such criticism (sourced to forensic psychologist Karen Franklin) from the article on hebephilia, and added none. Is this edit a violation of WP:COI or not? Tijfo098 ( talk) 23:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The original question is whether this 2008 source should be used to criticize or "de-bunk" the mainstream opinion. If you'll click that link and take a look at the image, you'll see a gray bar at the top of the page that says "LETTER TO THE EDITOR". Letters to the editor, especially when written by a person who had never published professionally on the actual subject in question, fail WP:MEDRS. I think that any impartial editor would have considered this at least a very weak source, and probably an unacceptable one. Basically, if Franklin's opinion is actually a non- WP:FRINGEy criticism, then editors will be able to produce a much better source than a letter to the editor, and if they can't, then I suggest that this inability is itself proof that including the criticism is FRINGEy and WP:UNDUE. As a suggestion, this newly published paper by the same author:
might make the same claims, and as a "research paper" in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it would very probably be an acceptable source.
Additionally, I don't think that warning a professor of psychology for "COI edits" by improving (or trying to) articles within his professional area is compatible with the community's goal of WP:Expert retention. WP:EXPERTs are allowed to edit Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(outdenting) Whatamidoing, please do not edit policy to make it support your position during an open debate [43]. This is the second time I have asked you not to do so [44]. Coincidentally, both times involved discussions about James Cantor's COI. BitterGrey ( talk) 23:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we're being lead off-track by User:WhatamIdoing. The discussion here should be about WP:COI edits. WhatamIdoing hasn't posted anything on the article's talk so far on this topic, or any other topic for that matter [46], but is filling this page with article content issues that are irrelevant on this board. Sorry for giving in to the temptation to reply to some of those, but the attempt to divert this discussion into a WP:MEDRS debate required a detailed rebuttal. Tijfo098 ( talk) 07:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think the reality is that James Cantor repeatedly edits wikipedia in conflict with WP:COI. See here for a preliminary list. I wish he would be more sensitive to this issue, because potentially, he could be a major contributor in this sometimes contentious area because of his expertise. What is required is striking a balance between the two. Unfortunately, I think for the moment, this might be a necessary action, which can easily be reversed once it is obvious that James is editing within the scope of WP:COI. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous editor editing from dynamic IPs has been continually inserting and re-inserting information favourable to the subject of the article that is not supported by the sources. They have ignored a number of efforts to discuss concerns (see User talk:111.220.249.29 and Talk:Patricia Petersen). The article history, particularly the edits around the 5th of June (which led to the page being semi-protected) may be particularly illuminating. -- Lear's Fool 03:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This has been raised before, but doesn't seem fully resolved. The article inflates the subject's notability - the guy is a schoolteacher who has written/cowritten a few niche books - and its editing is dominated by a series of single-purpose IP edits that have solely edited this article and ones pertaining to Paul Spiring's books (see these links : [48]. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 86.141.82.111 ( talk) 09:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Julio Robaina is being edited by new account Juliorobiana ( talk · contribs)...repeated additions of obviously POV material, with concomitant loss of wiki formatting, hasn't been stemmed by reversions and WP:COI/ WP:NPOV warnings. — Scien tizzle 02:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This user has made quite a few edits to the American Automobile Association article, and has not edited any other article. The user's older contributions were copied directly from AAA advertisement pamphlets, but the newer contributions appear to be original promotional material written specifically for the Wikipedia article. Jim ( talk) 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive96#Steven T. Murray, user Osobooks might well be Steven T. Murray, whose article he has edited significantly without including citations (as well as reverting my own edits to the article which were well sourced). Osobooks has not responded to a COI warning placed by another user at User talk:Osobooks, or to the issue I raised at Talk:Steven T. Murray. Mathew5000 ( talk) 03:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The two IP users listed above removed details on KAET's recent financial crisis on, without stating any reason ( [49]), and continued to do so even after their edits were reverted ( [50]).
The original section was well supported with sources from Phoenix newspapers. A WHOIS check of these IPs reveal that they belong to Arizona State University's network. These two IP addresses also have not edited anything outside of KAET.
Since KAET is a part of ASU, it is almost certain that whoever is behind the section blanking works for KAET in some capacity. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I had posted a request for help on COIN on September 7 this year here [51] There is a dispute concerning this article that currently has a COI tag. Several involved authors insist on placing this tag as dissent over article not being deleted as they wished and voted at AfD. Anyhow, many COIN participants contributed to the article at the time, and participant Atama contributed a lot to the talk page discussion. Atama stated “could someone outline the exact problems in the article that need to be addressed in order to remove the COI cleanup tag? The tag isn't supposed to be a permanent mark of shame for an article, nor is it meant to warn about behavioral issues, it is meant to help cleanup the article" Those addressed by that did so. The COI tag proponents’ concerns were addressed, arguments refuted. Atama has since that time not been contributing to WP, I do hope they are ok. Accordingly, the COI tag still stands, as does the impasse. It has been a month and a half. Would someone please uphold the policy and the civil discussion and work done there and remove the COI tag? Thanks in advance. Turqoise 127 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
User has identified himself as a patent lawyer who "tend(s) to contribute and edit articles only for proper attribution and content relative to my clients". User has created two articles with a heavily promotional flavor for inventors with a large number of patents and has engaged in edit warring on the Virtual reality therapy to add promotional information pursuant to (his clients?) patents. Uncle Dick ( talk) 18:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
User, previously reported http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Daniel_G._Amen and warned, has returned and repeated the exact same edits. Has not replied on article or user talk page. Glaucus ( talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I placed a {{db-spam}} tag on Ibiza managment,(has been deleted) and I noticed the creator was called User:Lisa-ibiza. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 07:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
According to this edit, we have an IP who has been editing Chris Stapleton and adding rumors. He says he works for the Jompson Brothers and asks that his material not be deleted, even after I said that we don't allow rumors. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 20:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I previously reported User:SFU Business re edits to SFU Business and the Simon Fraser University article. The same edits that I reversed have been re-made by User:SimonFB1965 which as you will note is Simon F(raser)B(usiness) - 1965 being the founding year of the university. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
User Yudanashi, who identifies himself here as a representative of BIPAC, created an article about this political action group, which reads like pure promotional material for the group. In the past few days, Yudanashi has also begun adding external links to pages on a BIPAC-owned website to many different articles about politicians. A representative sample link goes to a page that promotes not only the candidate but also BIPAC. It seems to me these links violate WP:COI as well as WP:EL. betsythedevine ( talk) 01:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Restarting the indents: I found some reliable sources for a story about BIPAC, whose treasurer turns out to be under federal indictment for vote-buying in Alabama. Yudanashi, who has re-created the deleted article with a bit less puffery than the original version, deleted this less-than-flattering information as well as other BIPAC stories currently making news in Alabama. Since the article is a new one, and Yudanashi and I seem to be the only 2 people editing it, I would like help and guidance from some experienced editor. Yudanashi claims on my talk page that the news stories of Alabama candidates being criticized for donations they got from BIPAC really refer to donations from BIPEC, a different group. I have yet to see a reliable source for that claim. I also take issue with Yudanashi's repeated claims for BIPAC (as it claims for itself) that it is "non-partisan"; check out the list of candidates they support and see how non-partisan you think they are: [57]. betsythedevine ( talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
BIPAC is entitled to support whatever candidates it want. It makes little sense to call your organization "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," terms implying an even-handed approach, on the basis that it has on rare occasions in the past supported a Democrat while spending millions to help Republicans. Wikipedia is meant to convey accurate information about the subjects of its articles; it should not be subverted to give respectability to inaccurate claims that organizations make about themselves. Let me add that disputes such as this are precisely why editors with a WP:COI are discouraged from editing their own articles. Your loyalty as an editor should be to the goal of informing readers. betsythedevine ( talk) 12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
More promotional language: cherry-picking from a very critical Mother Jones article the throwaway comment that BIPAC is "a powerful force" is promotional and misleading. There is an ocean of "nonpartisan" money drowning US elections from major players such as the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove's American Crossroads, American Future Fund. I appreciate that Yudanashi is new to Wikipedia but I would like some consensus here that BIPAC currently rates maybe two paragraphs describing its origins and efforts, paragraphs that should be in NEUTRAL language. betsythedevine ( talk) 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It is quite clear that Yudanashi and 74.96.186.205 should cease editing the article in question. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
A review of this IP's edits shows the majority are devoted to shining up the Ben Greenman article or dropping a mention of Greenman into other articles, recent example here. -- CliffC ( talk) 02:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. We are not sure who to contact about this.
I am, indeed, one of the people behind 13BIt Productions. Many people have asked us why we did not have a wikipedia entry, so we decided to post the basic information about our production company - just the facts.There are already stubs to us on Wikipedia, so we figured we would put a list of our films and the awards we have done, as well as the subjects of our films.
Please let us know how we can comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. We are not interested in doing a puff piece on ourselves, we simply want to get the basic info out there.
Thanks.
Paul
paulv@panix.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulvee ( talk • contribs)
I am watching " Decision Points" George W. Bush's memoir for BLP vandalism and Ted Cohen ( talk · contribs) added an announcement of his book on Bush Into the article. I gave a stearn warning on his talkpage but since I am unable to attend my attention fully to Wikipedia right now to watch this account I am bringing it here for less busy eyes to watch. Considering this author is the one who broke the story of Bush's 1976 DUI arrest I am unsure if there is BLP issue here to with his addition. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Ted Cohen responds, "I would like to know why Crown Books is listed in a Wiki piece announcing bush's new memoir, with an attendant link to the publisher's website. I edited the Wiki article to include my book with a link to my website. I do not understand why what I have posted is considered out of bounds and would appeal to others to make their own judgments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Cohen ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I was reprimanded by "Resident Anthropologist" for inserting as an edit into the Decision Points Wiki piece (the piece promoting George W. Bush's new memoir by Crown Books) a reference to my new Bush memoir. I also included a link to my book's website - since the Wiki piece contained a link to promote Crown Books and Bush's new memoir. I would like others to let us all know why Crown's Wiki promotion is any different from my attempt to get equal space and equal time. Yes, I am the Maine reporter who discovered just weeks before the 2000 presidential election the 1976 arrest records of George W. Bush. Now I have written an imaginative memoir about Bush. The publisher released a new edition Saturday. To be called out for trying to balance Wiki's coverage of Bush's own book with my version of his life is without merit. I would like to know who is overseeing Wiki's balancing of fair reporting. Respectfully submitted, Ted Cohen - author of "Derision Points," 2010, Progressive Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Cohen ( talk • contribs)
Scott Rhodes (stuntman) (Robert G. Griffith) appears to be an autobiography of RGriff1935 ( talk · contribs). Also possible coi with Teel James Glenn. Continues to remove coi and other maintenance templates without resolving many of the articles' issues--these are essentially press releases for performers whose notability may or may not be established. Possible afd candidates? JNW ( talk) 22:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
These two users have been reverting each other for a month or two on and off. Holden adds controversies, which Sam removes, replacing them with a pro-Herbert section, and vice-versa. Sam has accused Holden of working for a rival campaign, and I suspect that Sam works or is affiliated with Herbert's campaign. They have both received warnings on their talk pages, but have not stopped. As one who doesn't like getting involved in disputes such as this one, I ask for assistance in remedying this drawn-out revert war. Spalds ( talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
After I read an article about Wolk's lawsuits, I looked him up and found his Wikipedia article. If you Google Wolk, the top links are all about his libel lawsuits, but they were not mentioned on Wikipedia.
As these secondary reliable sources discuss, Arthur Wolk has sued dozens of people for libel just for mentioning court decisions that have talked about him, and I don't want to be one of them, so I'd like to be an anonymous editor.
Another editor says that this means I have a conflict of interest with Wolk because I want to be anonymous and not sued. I don't think that not wanting to be sued is a conflict of interest. I have done nothing but cite reliable sources. Can someone check my edits on these articles and see if I have written neutrally? If so, can you remove the COI tag? If not, please make the articles fair, and I will abide by your decision. Thank you.
(The owner of the Arthur Wolk article says that he works with Arthur Wolk, and is deleting reliably sourced information about him and turning the article into a press release. I don't understand why that's not a conflict of interest.) Boo the puppy ( talk) 12:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI: http://www.makemoneybloggingschool.com/index.php/how-to-get-a-link-from-wikipedia-to-your-blog/
When you are trying to use Wikipedia to create links you will need to find a suitable page. The best way of doing this is to choose a Wikipedia page which isn’t updated regularly. This will make it possible to keep your links there for as long as possible.
Fred Talk 00:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/?title=Special:LinkSearch Fred Talk 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
On Recent Changes patrol I came across T. Hayden Barnes written by User:Thbarnes whom appears to be (and has identified himself on Talk:T. Hayden Barnes as being the article's subject. Looking into the contributions I found he has added information about a lawsuit he involved with at Valdosta State University as well as making an article about the lawyer representing him: Robert Corn-Revere. I'm hoping this COI problem can be resolved peacefully, as I didn't notice the complex issue when I tagged the subject's own article. - Warthog Demon 04:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I need a few people eyes on Alan Page it was invaded by Lbln.88 ( talk · contribs), a single purpose account only used to promote Alan Page reputation. I just caught the user socking on commons uploading copyvios that were deleted here. Thanks Secret account 22:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
125.19.51.106 ( talk · contribs), which is shown to be registered to Indiabulls, is removing information in the Indiabulls article which the company might not like to be there, but does appear to be sourced. Corvus cornix talk 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Rabbi Pinto Beobjectiveplease User Beobjectiveplease should be banned. Please assist. He only comments on this article and should not be editing this site and doing nothing else. Clear sockpuppetry. Please assist. 68.173.122.113 ( talk) 06:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry means that this individual is whitewashing details on Pinto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 ( talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Lots of edits to his own article, said on his talk page that it is him and has been warned about COI however continued to edit. methecooldude Contact 10:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Paid editor; see Talk:Rick Webb: "Watco Companies has hired me to set this up for them".. Hairhorn ( talk) 13:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The editor declares on his user page that he is involved with Guiness World Records. He obviously has a lot of expertise that could be very valuable for the encyclopedia, but in his work on Longevity myths and related articles, he seems to be too close to the subject to see the wood for the trees. It is all just messy. There is a medcab case open, and I made a merge proposal. I came to it from WP:FTN, and am not the only person concerned about the quality of these articles. I'm hoping that the COI question can be addressed effectively but without completely alienating this expert editor. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Longevity myths
What on earth do we do? The article is battled between two sides, and each seems to be as mistaken as the other. (tears at hair) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, the editor she posted this message to (Grismaldo) ended up on the merge discussion. Ryoung122 15:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As for my essay, it's been published online and won a national award as a thesis, and published as a book. But in reality it did little more than to more clearly state and merge in one place what had been said for years in separate accounts. We find articles about the myths of longevity in Russia, in Japan, etc. It's not simply the colloquial myth: the stories of Japanese longevity related to the emperors and the crypto-historical founding of Japan in 660 BC (when in was in fact closer to 420 AD). In Russia, the myths of longevity are collective, group myths, that are intertwined with religious and ethnic beliefs, just as are stories of extreme longevity in the Bible.
And if recent claims to be extreme age are also called "myths," there's a reason the word is plural.
I have a solution. Let's withdraw the merge proposal, and then we need a discussion between the "scientific" POV and the "Christian" point of view. It may be as simple as renaming the article "longevity myths and traditions" and then everyone can assume/presume whether Methuselah is a "myth" or "tradition" (or both). Ryoung122 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoa! An IP claims that Robert Young is blatantly breaking canvassing rules! If a user with access can confirm this, he'd better retract quick if he wants to stay on this IMHO. I'll chime in later with relevant history. O Fenian is right on point, but that is just one way that WP:WOP operates as an arm of GRG/OHB/GWR interests rather than WP interests. JJB 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Previous appearance on this noticeboard
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Longevity myths, Longevity claims, etc.
He used to have his own article, now deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(gerontologist)
He's a suspected sockpuppeteer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ryoung122
Discussions at ANI too.
I just did a search on Ryoung122 and then checked "Everything" to get the WP pages up.
In one case the arb Carcaroth said he could work with him, so perhaps we should drop him a line about it. I'm about to go off-wiki. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Board, is this well-formed, well-evidenced case going to go the way of the last one, where COI was found unequivocally and then ... nothing whatsoever happened? Thank you. JJB 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Update He is now trying to use his own master's thesis as proof that the article discusses a viable subject matter. See here. There is a clear COI here. Griswaldo ( talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Remark: Related case at Mediation Cabal located here Netalarm talk 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose a result of toothless board and a finding of an open door to a next WP:DR step. E.g., mediation cabal may have just reopened and I'll try that awhiles. Other prognoses invited. JJB 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to have it in one place, Longevitydude deleted my request from his talk page. I asked him again [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian supercentenarians here] after he made another GRG-dependent comment. There are other issues inappropriate to mention here. JJB 19:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC) He has now answered and is looking into his own COI issues himself. JJB 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion: I have proposed some COI handling options at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. Please continue there. JJB 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This user states he's director of online marketing at TV Guide, and is aware of the guidelines on conflict of interest, "I've carefully read all of Wikipedia's guidelines, and completely understand that any promotion or links back to TV Guide made by me, my staff or anyone at TV Guide for marketing purposes is in violation of those guidelines." as is all stated on his user page. Despite that the user has been adding unneeded references to already aired episode to TV Guide, and replacing references to other websites with TV Guide equivalents. Basically every edit this user makes has been adding TV Guide links and references, although some with valid content, but as of late more pushing TV Guide in favor of other valid websites and unnecessarily adding it. This is basically advertisement for the company he works for. Xeworlebi ( talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
When you are on the list of british high commissoners to india and you click on Sir david goodall, it goes to the wrong David goodall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrygre ( talk • contribs)
-- JN 466 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: This report uses only data from on-Wikipedia, and declarations and self-disclosures made on-Wikipedia.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 14:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 14:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Recently, User:THF has made a statement at User talk:THF#COI clarification needed agreeing to take a step back. Will Beback and Jehochman have explained what the matter is. Since THF has agreed not to continue in this vein, I propose that we consider the COI matter resolved. THF's comments about the filing here by Cirt as being a violation of WP:HARASS are in my opinion not justified. Cirt's COIN filing above, though it is vigorously worded, in my opinion is a correct use of normal procedures. Legal threats are usually made in talk space not article space. The fact that THF was not editing articles directly doesn't avoid the COI problem (bringing an off-wiki connection with the subject of the article into the wiki). EdJohnston ( talk) 00:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Kelly2357 ( talk) 06:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Animal rights wiki admins (and general editors) are censoring and deleting content on this page. We need netural mods to help the page (who do not have a vegan agenda)
Vegan animal rights activists at 30bananas forum have committed to hijacking the Wikipedia page on the China Study (seemingly in cahoots with some of the editors), removing any mention of the most relevant critiques of the book. You can see what tampering has been done on the revision history of the page.
To give you an idea of what we are up against check out the comments from a 30 bananas member below:
"I am sorry if this request lands in the wrong thread, but please alert all VEGAN Wikipedia editors and admins of this (if you know any)! "Denise Minger" is very likely a large scale underground defamation campaign against Dr.Campbell! No matter if she is a real person or not, this is no "private blogger". I wrote already to Dr.Campbell himself, I hope there will be more awareness of the case. But what is essential is urgent protection and following up on the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study Please do not take this lightly. This is a war somebody is leading on, but it can be stopped by focused and clear approach at the major concentration points (like the Wikipedia). Please consider adding this possibility to your agenda and to support the Wikipedia article on a daily base."
"I just come back from the Wikipedia with a small first victory :) I was alerting many (vegan) admins and long term editors, and other people were on the move as well, and finally one of THE major Wikipedia admins, who happens to be vegan, is now watching over the article. ALL the "Denis Minger" blah got removed :) Plus some of the other only blog published, not peer-reviewed and not in the least scientifically backed nonsense too!"
References: http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/official-responses-to-the?commentId=2684079:Comment:739324&groupId=2684079:Group:628512 http://foodfloraandfelines.blogspot.com/2010/10/vegan-propaganda-campbell-vs-minger.html
Thank you for your help, I believe Wikipedia should be a fair place Kelly
What about the reviews from all the other critiques? The medical doctors, the professors and the nutrition experts? These all have references that are not from blog websites. but still, all these edits were censored or removed.
It seems you only need strong news like references if the material is 'likely to be challenged' ... posting someone's review or criticism of a book should not be challenged. see WP:CHALLENGE
What is there to challenge about a book review from another expert in the same field? I do not understand why you would challenge that the critiques never said this? It’s only when you state something like “80% of red heads are colour-blind” that you need to cite a strong reference, as that of course is likely to be challenged (as it simply is not true) whereas it is true that these professors and doctors did say these things about the book.
Sorry if my n00bness is frustrating you, I'm just trying to understand the issues & rules Kelly2357 ( talk) 07:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of interest by User:Danieldis47 and User:Etalssrs (possibly the same user, or associates) discovered by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry as per this AfD, which is how I first found out about it. The creator of the article works as a "communication consultant", and has admitted on Twitter that he was being paid to write Wikipedia articles. Going through his contributions, most of his new articles seem to be of borderline notability, but his contributions have avoided scrutiny since he is familiar with the Manual of Style. I'm relatively new to this proccess, so I'm not very familiar with the correct course of action or the particulars of WP:COI on what should be done. His earlier contributions seem to be innocuous, but his newer ones stray farther away from his field of interest and are suspicious.-- res Laozi speak 13:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Explanation of the situation = self-explanatory, from the links above. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 07:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This seems very implausible: Christopher Connor is a fifty-something American executive with Sherwin-Williams, and User:Christopher Connor is a British snooker fan with a wide variety of editing interests, none of which have to do with paint. And the article in question doesn't even read like an autobiography. Far more likely that the Wikipedia user had an interest in the famous person who shared the same name--a name that isn't all that unusual. Anyone who was following WP:AGF and doing a smidgen of due diligence would have no reason to suspect COI violation, so I'm not surprised that a longtime TDYK participant treated the COI inquiry as a joke. (And in the unlikely event that a multi-millionaire executive spent three years contributing to Wikipedia under a false persona but real name in the hopes of fooling me when writing his autobiography, that's still probably a net gain to Wikipedia that we shouldn't discourage.) THF ( talk) 08:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
From what I can gather by reading the policies and guidelines, there's no obligation for me to say anything. Other people have commented that the article is within policy and so there's nothing more to be said in this thread. Christopher Connor ( talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm marking this as resolved as the article is neutral and CC has stated it is not about them. SmartSE ( talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the Lyfjahonnun group has created a new account. Since we used a spamblock and not a softerblock for username only, that raises the issue about their new account and continued introduction of material. We may need a subject matter expert in order to figure out whether these contributions are constructive or not.
Then there's the original article:
Gigs ( talk) 19:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on a slew of high school articles in Arizona of late: 13 school stubs and three district articles, mostly in the past few days.
One of the schools on my target list to improve (many are stub creation efforts for schools with enrollments that are pretty high: 1,500 for instance, with the exception being Camp Verde High School) is Seton Catholic High School.
This article needs a bit of work – and I know because I attend said institution:
Would it be OK to make this information change (in line with work I have done for other school articles), provided I keep to WP:NPOV etc.? Today marks my 5th anniversary as a Wikipedia editor, by the way, so I think I can do this. Raymie ( t • c) 05:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)