If you're interested in putting in some sysop-like work, have a look at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. It's got 31 open cases including a long list of bot-identified probable vanity articles. The board could really use some extra help and much of it doesn't need the tools. Drop me a line if something needs a block. Regards, DurovaCharge!14:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, I got rather pissed off by that article. I've left an apology on the guy's talk page. Thanks, I'll be more tactful in future. mattbuck18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may as well remove all links to beeradvocate being that we are just spamming and trying to make a buck off of wiki. Let the wiki beer project know as well. Thanks!
I suggest that when you do edit an article dealing with someone you consult for, to make a note of it on the article talk page. DGG00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over the externl links policy twice and I don't see where the links to BeerAdvocate, RateBeer or Quaffale fail it in any way. While I do post to beeradvocate.com sometimes I'm not any sort of poobah on the site, and I have no particular interest in promoting them or anything else; they're just useful resources that include information beyond what would be considered notable in the articles.
In mentioning general notability you raise a point which has been raised, discussed, and resolved a few months ago; we held a lot of discussions with people arguing strongly on both sides but consensus seems to clearly be that a wide swathe of breweries notable under WP:N and indeed two that I've written articles on (Bryncelyn Brewery and Wye Valley Brewery) have not only survived review by the broader Wikipedia community but gone onto WP:DYK.
With regard to the current debate, I humbly submit that User:Jalstromb, while enthusiastic, is rightly miffed that BeerAdvocate was moved, then deleted. That speedy simply should not have happened; the move was done by a user who's made broad unilateral changed before, and nobody caught it in time to discuss it. I can understand why at first glance some of the editing Wikiproject:Beer has been doing might seem reactionary, but it seems to happen every so often that someone will make lots of changes to a large number of articles without any discussion whatsoever; in the case of the BeerAdvocate links in particular, a user deleted a number of the links, then when prompted for an explanation said that the site had been blacklisted but could not produce any evidence to that effect whatsoever. Given incidents like that, I think we're right to be on our guard. --Stlemur13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reverted a deletion of links you made to Wye Valley Brewery; I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it could be argued that the links aren't fully acceptable, in particular in light of:
Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
Sites that contain neutral and ) accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
These sites include things like contact information, photographs, reviews, and more complete beer lists than can be practically included in the article. --Stlemur14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
Links mainly intended to promote a website.
Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
You'll notice that iPod does not link to any social networking/rating sites, such as C|Net, even though C|Net is much more notable than BeerAdvocate. I won't edit war with you, but I will report this to WP:WPSPAM so other editors can help us resolve the matter. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's asserted that the sites should be linked to because some of them have social networking content; if anyone is linking to the fora rather than to the beer pages, those should be removed forthwith. In terms of unique information, though, the sites are very often more complete and up-to-date than the brewery websites; many large brewers produce beers that they don't promote at all (e.g. Hardy & Hanson's Mild) and so never appear in official literature or websites, while small ones often don't have sites or other publications, or don't update what they have. For me, at least, the cataloging aspect of these sites is far and away more important than the rating aspect or anything else. What's more, I think we can both agree that including the level of detail provided on the outside pages -- beer alcohol by volume, monthly availability, serving styles available, and so on -- would be beyond what would reasonably be provided in a featured article.
As for including the suite of three or four, yes, sometimes they are somewhat redundant with one another. In the case of BeerAdvocate versus RateBeer, as User:Jalstromb points out it would look biased to only include one site or the other (the two are fierce competitors); in the case of a site like QuaffAle, its information is updated more frequently for UK breweries than either RateBeer or BeerAdvocate, but it doesn't have any beer lists. While I agree we shouldn't include all four sites if they all include exactly the same information, most of the time that simply isn't the case. --Stlemur16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, which I've seen before several times, is that your list of three good beer review sites will morph into a list of three good sites and 25 spammy MFA (Made for Adsense) sites. If you have that same list on hundreds of different beer articles, it's much harder to guard against this than if you put the list in one place. Also, why have links to three sites that provide essentially the same info. Wikipedia isn't a search engine. If somebody wants to know about a beer, they can just Google it. If the breweries don't list all their products, that's their own fault. Wikipedia isn't here to correct that. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the tips. i've finished playing now and will leave you alone.
Hello, my article on Blade3D was recently deleted without warning. I have tried to contact the admin who deleted it but so far have not received a response. I notice you left a message on my talk page regarding possible conflict of interest shortly before it was deleted so I was wondering if you were involved in the deletion process.
The article was a lot of work, written by myself and members of our community and the intention was to provide an objective, informative and unbiased view of the product from a technical perspective, not advertise. In fact the article was based on another article Softimage XSI, a well known 3D modeling system and our article maintained the same spirit. If you compare our article with the one for Visual3D.NET for instance I think you will agree that our article is an order of magnitude away from being advertising even though this other article survives.
I am not an experienced Wikipedian, but from a business perspective I'm sure you can appreciate it is important that a company maintain a presence on wikipedia if competitors also have content here. Perhaps in a perfect world no products would be in Wikipedia but the reality is far from this nirvana. We recognize the conflict and this is why we tried to make the content of our article technology related rather than blatant advertising. I might add that we have no objection whatsoever in changing the content of the article to be more compliant so that this does not happen again.
The problem you have is that you are completely ignoring Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when you write about yourself, your own company or your own product. Please start at Wikipedia:Introduction and read through the basics. If your competitors are spamming Wikipedia, there are proper ways to report that so the community can remove those articles. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shameless promotion and I didn't delete the page. All I did was add a link to a page within wikipedia.
He is a douche bag and if you don't let other SEO's publish their info on wikipedia, then you don't need to allow that douche have a page on wikipedia either. He is NOT wikipedia worthy unless you will allow people to say what they really think of him.
Of course, I'm sure whoever this is editing this subject, you probably have your profile up to.
UPDATE: I stand corrected...you're not listed that I could find. But you have to admit, since you obviously know the guy, I'm not sure what purpose that page has being listed. It is not helpful to wikipedia at all. And if I somehow deleted the page, you have my personal apology, I did not try to delete it. I will admit to putting the link to wikipedia "douche bag" page.
I see you're speaking next week...can't wait to see who slapped my hand!
He's not my favorite SEO either, but that doesn't mean you can just delete his page. Next time you don't like a page, use proper procedures to get it reviewed. AntiVandalBot reverted your edits within seconds.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Doug Heil. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Archive_2, thanks for your support in my successful RfA.
As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand why this is raising a SPAM issue?
There is no external links pointing or and to the article. This is a brand new technique of taking "rich user experience" and "organic search" and combining the two by using the CDL implementation. It has never been done and will change the way a lot of developers will create their sites. I shared all the technical specifications in order to assist the general public with this knowledge. If there is any way I can improve the article, I am open to suggestions. Is not benefiting any organisation nor is it promoting any product, CDL is just a name that was given to it.
Thanks for handling the problem with User:Callmebc. I'd originally intervened and warned Callmebc about a number of issues. However, when he started insulting me I figured I'd better get another admin to look at the situation so I couldn't be accused of a conflict of interest. But you and DurovaCharge! were so on top of the situation that I didn't even get the chance to ask someone for assistance. Excellent work. Best, --Alabamaboy13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- I'm just trying to sort out who said what to whom leading to my 72 hr block. One thing I'm wondering about is whether you actually read any of the exchanges between me and "Alabamaboy"? He was brought in by "CWC," and "CWC" committed some no-no's including one really big one that both you and "Alabama" apparently chose to put a blind eye to. I would have thought an email threat would be considered slightly more noteworthy than someone using the term "shit-for-brains," but I'm not so wise in the wild and wacky Wiki ways (there seems to be a lot of libertarians and MENSAs around, which would explain a few things). So what's up with that? Also, could you kindly tell me who actually put the block on me, "Durova" or "Athaenara"? A curious mind would like to know. -BC aka Callmebc13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: (1) I had absolutely nothing to do with User:Alabamaboy's participation in Callmebc-vs-everyone-else and (2) my big "no no" exists only in Callmebc's mind (as do the other things he has accused me of). Cheers, CWC13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I do believe I wasn't asking you the question, and I while I appreciate your no-doubt sincere intentions to be helpful, I'm quite sure you'll have plenty of opportunities later to explain your side in more detail. I'm just asking a question or two to help clarify matters. I have noticed how many here tend to prefer making nonresponsive statements over directly answering questions, but please consider humoring a Wiki newbie trying to make sense of it all. Thank you kindly. -BC aka Callmebc16:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yet again -- I'm still awaiting a response from you (and not CWC) in regards to my earlier questions: whether you had actually read any of the exchanges between me and "Alabamaboy," why you never commented on CWC's email threat/warning/whatever; was it actually "Durova" or "Athaenara" who put the block on me; and how exactly did you come to get involved in the first place? And for the bonus question, how come nobody has yet fixed the curious state of the "history" of the Talk (aka "Non-Discussion") page -- CWC evidently made a bit of a mess just after the block was put on me. A still curious mind would like to know. -BC aka Callmebc04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) We have a big backlog at WP:COIN. Why don't you go over there and help investigate some of those cases? I assure you, doing a bit of work over there will help you feel much better. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I will admit to maybe, possibly having certain skills that could in theory help rather than hurt with those types of investigations, I alas have more immediate concerns at hand I'm trying to sort out. Since you were involved in somewhat unclear ways in one of those immediate concerns, it would be most helpful if you could clear up matters a little bit by addressing my questions. Any info would be most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BC, my point is that there are lots of ways to help the encyclopedia. My talk page is the wrong forum to discuss who did what and why. Looking at your user contributions lists, I see that you've only edited one article. Your opinions will carry more weight if you get involved with a diversity of articles, projects and activities here. I am trying to help you. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try this one last time and I'll also try to simplify matters: 1) had you actually ever read any of the exchanges between "Alabamaboy" and I before involving yourself? 2) did you not see the subsection called "Email threat," and if so, why not ask about that instead of the use of a naughty word? 3) how exactly did you come to get involved with the Killian dispute in the first place? and 4) who actually put the block on me, "Durova" or some mysterious 3rd party named "Athaenara"? A responsive answer would be really refreshing at this point and most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, who said it was "my" site? It isn't... all this is instigated by Alain Poiraud who is the designer of the "Spade" anchor... which was portrayed as only 2nd best, dear oh dear, by a comparison chart which was based on independent data. Poiraud solicited a buddy from external forums (Russeasby) and they have been slandering the content as spam ever since, on the basis that the chart was an interpretation of the data by Rocna (who simply adjusted it to be on a more fair weight-for-weight basis). The other reason was the presence of permission from Rocna to use the chart, as opposed to the original versions from the published test results.
More personal attacks are the norm now, as I seem to be the only one defending the existing content. There were some good contributions from 3rd parties on the talk page but they were largely ignored at the time by Russeasby until he found something he liked.
The links in question which you've removed: I don't see the problem, the Coastguard article in particular is entirely independent and has been published by what I assume you will agree is a reputable organization. Just because it's hosted on a manufacturer's website, so what?
The whole debacle is designed to introduce a bias against a particular brand (Rocna) by its competitor(s) or other interested parties, given the success of the product and the independent reviews/testing now available. The fox is in the henhouse, so-to-speak.
You should note that all this content has been present for a considerable time and survived numerous edits by more neutral editors.
If you want to make a case, you need to shorten your comments and cite specific edits. If you look at the article history tab, you can compare two edits and copy that URL. That's called a "diff," and is what you should use as evidence. It seems that you are affiliated with Rocna, so it's not appropriate for you to make controversial article edits related to your brand. As soon as you get out of the way, we will look at the other participants. Feel free to make a short statement supported by evidence at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/noticeboard if you need to draw attention. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have been involved to a degree with the conflict at Anchor and behavior of User:Badmonkey, I wanted to point out that I have opened a RFC on User conduct at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey, if you wish to comment or certify the RFC. (RFC instructions directed me to leave comments on pages of uninvolved editors who attempted to resolve hte dispute and may certify it, so this is not WP:CANVASS). Russeasby23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Thanks for the notice. Feel free to fully review the article for tone, content and sourcing. I Was only there because we got an email complaining about this article and when I check it out the person complaining was filling it full of POV and OR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user's talk page was deleted not long ago, after the name was blocked as promotional. The details of the block were on the talk page, but you wouldn't have seen that since it's gone now. I believe the user registered a different name, because a user with the non-promotional name User:Nancy Peluso took over where this user left off on the Connecticut State Library article. Just figured I'd let you know what the situation was, since you left the note for Connecticut State Library. LeeboT/C17:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I look at so many of these I forget who's who. Nancy Peluso isn't overtly affiliated. If you have any info to the contrary, let me know. Otherwise, she's off on her merry way to edit this article. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't saying we discuss it with Nancy Peluso, because she is contributing in good faith. Happy editing. LeeboT/C17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, darn. Looks like my RFA didn't succeed. No doubt I'll take another run at it in a few months when my edit count isn't such an issue. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message about conflict of interest. I assumed (incorrectly, I suppose) that because of the notability factor of the persons in the band Lucky 57, it was ok to create a page. I know you mentioned you did not mark it for deletion, but it appears to be gone anyway. How can the information be legitimately posted? Thanks again. Looseground19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you can look at my early contributions and see the same kind of mistake. Getting Wikipedia to create a new page isn't the easiest thing. If you think the band is truly notable, you could create a page within your userspace. Try User:Looseground/Sandbox. Add some content there, and then try find an established editor, interested in music, who has no connection to the band, and no strong connection to you. Ask them if they would review the content and maybe help turn it into an article. Your odds will be improved if you become active editing music articles and develop your own reputation and learn more about how Wikipedia works. Take a look at Wikipedia's mentoring program. The other thing you can do is work on getting reporters to write about the band. Having independent source of info will increase the band's notability. Even with no direct effort on your part, if you become notable, somebody may start an article spontaneously. That's the best possible outcome. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - The band has been written about in the National press (Boston Globe, LA Daily News, TimeOut NY, etc.) - and was this past years winner of a Boston Music Award. The band members are from other notable bands who are listed in Wikipedia (Human Sexual Response, for example.) So Lucky 57 is not unknown - just not on a major label (or "indie" label for that matter -- one and the same - Looseground Records is the band's own label DIY)
Thanks for the suggestion about the sandbox. If you could recommend an established editor for this sort of article, that'd be fantastic.
Best.
You're right, Wikipedia isn't a How-to book, but then again the rules of SMO aren't real 'rules'. I altered the introduction to the rules, since Braghava also ment them to be 'rules to guide the thinking' instead of real, hard 'rules'.
I see another editor has told you to use the article talk page, but you still fail to do so why? I've place a copy of the other editor's request and your reply below.--Scribner06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I suggest that when you do edit an article dealing with someone you consult for, to make a note of it on the article talk page. DGG 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that tip, David G. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)"
Also, David you place a "protected" tag on the article without the authority to do so. Don't do that, and learn to use the article talk page, got it?--Scribner06:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to this is for you to use the article's talk page and keep your comments on topic. Once again, material posted in the article (any article) needs to be verifiable. Information that is not supported by the cites will be removed. I've stated all of this on the article talk page. Why am I having to tell you personally on your talk page?--Scribner07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nearly 3,000 edits and am well aware of all the policies you cite. I don't care so much about this article. My grave concern is that you are edit warring and badgering anyone who disagrees with you, me included. This is very harmful to the project. I will report this to WP:AN/I if you insist on continuing. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 07:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute
Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a shared IP address so I have assumed good faith. There could be more than one user. If they continue to ignore the warnings, we should try to block the IP address. Jehochman (talk/contrib)
You're right, except that 90% of their edits have been to this article, and 90% of those edits have been to revert edits others have made in an attempt to make the article more encyclopedic. Whether it's more than one user or not, the article seems to be getting edited by Common Cause employees on the job. We should keep a close eye on this. XINOPH | TALK11:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, in order for the rules to be enforced around here we need to report it immediately after a violation? Simply the fact that there was a violation should be enough to ban them. That sounds pretty silly to me. XINOPH | TALK18:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. We need to go to an administrator, but I'd rather not bother somebody when the problem may have cleared itself up. In any case, if I request adminship I'll be able to handle these things myself, which will be much more efficient. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 18:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jehochman. Since you are currently in administrator training and also a bit familar with the subject, here is a case where you can test your knowledge in wikipedia processes. It's an AfD debate for the affiliate network ShareAsale. It is currently in deletion review. Your opinion and insight in this matter would be appreciated. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your support truly appreciated and after feeling bullied into the ground by the WP guru(s)very welcome. Saying that thought the aim is to produce a definative Endal page which after 11 years of being in the media is hard to condense down..if we survive the Deletion vote
we will achieve the aim! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.196.223 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, I agree with your additions to this page, regarding merely having a professional or hobby interest. You also made good clarifications, esp. changing "and " to "or". Bearian20:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jehochman,
Oh, you changed all references already. I left you a message at my talk page. I am sorry. I was also fed up with some other things here at Wikipedia. The ShareASale AfD and AfD Review, which also relates to the general problem of lack of contributors to the affiliate marketing industry. I made a post that talks about the issues at ReveNews.com today. I am sure you will find it quite interesting.
I commented out one reference of the SEO article. Last paragraph, the Search King case and the publication at Lawmeme. The whole site is down since at least yesterday. I could not find a good alternative for this reference. The other good publications all reference to that one. I could also not find the public records of the case to refer to that. If the site comes up again, simply remove the comment tags. If it does not, we have a minor problem. Just FYI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good reference on C|Net and will add it. Don't get depressed about negative things around here. Try to spend some time elevating articles to good or featured status. That's one way to feel happy. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good that you found one. Just replace the old one. It seems the whole micro site was removed. They may be moved somewhere else.
Regarding the featured article stuff. I try that with the affiliate marketing article where I spent already countless hours on. I got some great comments at the talk page and responded to them and updated the article, but that is not enough and I can't do it by myself.
It is a shame how little content exists in Wikipedia about the subject. The problem is that the industry virtually exists in a bubble. It has its own stuff like news sites, stats and benchmarks, tradeshows, NO organization, you name it. It's rare that somebody outside affiliate marketing reports about the subject. Usually only the bad stories about malware and spam and all that. I try to motivate people to contribute to Wikipedia to educate people about the industry. Not teach, but educate, facts and figures. Right now have most people that are not involved in the industry, wrong or no ideas in their head what affiliate marketing actually is and how it works. Wikipedia is a good place to fix that. Learn the facts first and then make up your mind or digg deeper into the subject matter and listen to insider and outside opinions. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I am currently busy with the debate to not get the article about ShareASale deleted again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shareasale_(second_nomination)#.5B.5BShareasale.5D.5D. I found another source, Internet Retailer which is outside the affiliate marketing industry as you probably know. And I argued that WP:CORP is being met by ShareASale and also that the sources are reliable and verifiable. Not a New York Times, but I can't change that. Your opinion in this debate would be appreciated. Cheers. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a picture and extended the lead significantly. The picture is a collection of various companies in the affiliate marketing space. It's not easy to think of something else that would represent the industry well. It's so diverse :). Have a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may find this interesting in an almost-appalling way:
There are cases where a spammer's misbehaviour on Wikipedia can really backfire on them, especially if they're using multiple accounts. Take a look at this thread by an angry spammer on my talk page at User talk:A. B.#LEVEL 1 INTIMIDATION WARNING NR 2, in particular my most recent comments. That particular person has continued going around raising a fuss and issuing bogus warnings to various editors even after one of his sites has been blacklisted. He runs the risk of having his organisation's name and the words "spam" and "harassment" float up to the top of any searches on the organisation's name.
Furthermore, while I'm still not sure whether the rumours are true that Google and others consult our blacklist when compiling their own, getting his site blacklisted has also gotten him blacklisted by default at hundreds of other unrelated wikis that run the same MediaWiki software and incorporate our blacklist in their own filtering.
This is an extreme case but I've seen others bring on their own "perfect storm" by their actions and the standard responses they trigger here (documenting misbehaviour on each the talk page for each account used).
I'm not sure I know whether to laugh, smirk or cry for this guy. In any event, the situation he's creating certainly seems like a major waste on his part. --A. B.(talk)14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this story. I may use it as an example in future presentations. In a few weeks I will have a chance to ask Matt Cutts directly whether Google could consult the Wikimedia blacklist. If nothing else, this will make them aware that it exists. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 18:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw the comment when I wanted to comment on our other discussion. I would be surprised if Google (and Yahoo!, MSN and Ask.com) does not use something like the ban list already. At least to raise flags or to penalize the site to some degree. If they are on the Wikipedia ban list, how much of their other inbound links were acquired in a similar fashion? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I will be at SES San Jose this summer. Do you have your presentation there as well? I saw the slides and Barry's post which looked very good. We would also meet in person and can have a nice Wikipedia chat while having a beer. Bill Slawski and Loren Baker are also interested in this stuff. Bill even contributes to Wikipedia as well. Cheers. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm going to be accused of POV and have edits reverted on that basis, I would appreciate the courtesy of an explanation and a reference to even one specific example.
Here are my edits that you reverted:
Removal of a claim that conventional BHRT only treats symptoms of menopause whereas the Wiley Protocol also promotes restoring or preserving health. There is nothing defensible about this claim. Anyone familiar with BHRT will tell you it's nonsense. A simple Google search will tell you it's nonsense. (This claim was added by Wiley's husband, Nraden, incidentally.)
Corrections and additional details on the UT study, with reference.
Removal of unsourced statements regarding the ACAM report (as discussed on the talk page) while also balancing out its representation (namely, that it includes positive reports of the Wiley Protocol).
You reverted all of these changes, so is it your position that you consider all of them POV and unjustifiable? Which one of these edits, from a neutral point of view, is not an improvement in the article or not consistent with Wikipedia policy?
I'm COI and open about it (unlike Nraden). If I were on a "smear campaign" or if I didn't welcome scrutiny, I wouldn't be. Neither my COI nor Nraden's say-so make my edits POV. I put a lot of effort into following Wikipedia policies and guidelines (not without mistakes) and in fact I've made edits -- including one that you reverted -- that reflect positively on the Wiley Protocol.
Nraden can rant about me all he wants, but I think my history shows that I deserve at least a little more respect than this. --Debv22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You admit that you are running an anti-Wiley advocacy site. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia articles on the subjects you are advocating against, you can post comments on your own site, or you can post a brief note on the article talk page. Your editing the article is extremely unhelpful and is a violation of the conflict of interest guideline. Please read that guideline again carefully. User:Nraden has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Both of you have significant COI with respect to these articles and should avoid editing them. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI does not forbid editors with outside interest from making contributions, and indeed acknowledges that they can be valuable: "Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage." You say that my edits are "extremely unhelpful". Which are you referring to? Is this simply because Wiley's husband makes repeated and loud personal attacks against me? (And apparently he's now engaged in off-wiki campaigning?) Is that all it takes to silence another editor? Shouldn't content and contributions be the basis for assessing these sorts of things?
If you look at the state of T. S. Wiley before I got involved, you will see that it was highly POV, ignoring the very real controversies that surround the subject. I watched and waited for months to see if anyone would correct this bias, but nobody did. It was just getting worse.
Believe me, I would prefer that neutral editors keep things in check. I completely agree that that is highly preferable (and I would prefer not be involved at all). Unfortunately it doesn't usually work out that way. Still, I usually wait a day or two to see if anyone cleans up the garbage that certain editors inject. Perhaps I need to stand back further. Okay, fine. I will. But my involvement has contributed to the NPOV of these articles. I stand by my history.
Again, if you think my edits are POV, then please explain where and why. I deserve the courtesy of an explanation and the opportunity to correct and learn from any mistakes. Thank you. --Debv23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use the talk pages to identify any problems, or suggest new references. Or leave me a message and I will have a look. You'll see that I've tagged the articles for NPOV and COI. That should bring more editors around, and also serve as a warning to the public. I wrote parts of the COI guideline, so I am quite familiar with what it says. Believe me, the slow path via the talk page is more effective in the long run. You will see. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I'm confident that with more nonpartisan eyeballs and with a certain other editor under control, these articles will improve with or without me. (And I truly do look forward to being less actively involved.)
The only remaining issue for me is that you have accused me of POV and reverted edits on the grounds that they are POV, but as yet without discussion or explanation. Perhaps it was borne of frustration (understandable when interacting with certain individuals), but I can't at this point imagine anyone disagreeing that this reversion detracts from the quality of the article.
Your edits were reverted because I can't be sure if they are NPOV or not, because you have a close connection to the subject and a history of advocating one particular point of view. I don't think you can approach this subject with neutrality. That isn't a negative statement about you. We all have our issues. There are topics that I won't touch because I don't feel that I can be neutral. Please post your edit suggestions to the talk page and let a neutral editor review them. Your edits may be good, and I myself would be happy to check them, but please use the talk page. Thank you. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think reversions should be made by assuming bad faith. Please leave the article as it was and let the active editors familiar with the subject decide this. Meanwhile I will, on your advice and with thanks, resign from that group. --Debv02:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary break
You are an outspoken a public critic of the article subject. As such, when you make what appear to be conflict of interest edits, there's no reason to assume good faith. When you are affected by COI, that raises suspicion. This is why COI editing is highly discouraged, because it undermines the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You are an outspoken a public critic of the article subject. As such, when you make what appear to be conflict of interest edits, there's no reason to assume good faith."
I don't see any policy or guideline that supports this, but perhaps I'm overlooking something. This seems to suggest otherwise: (WP:COI) "Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor."
At any rate, I asked and you declined. And that's fine. We may not come to agreement on all points, but this interaction has helped me to understand policies and guidelines better, and how I can better conduct myself here. Thank you. --Debv03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the NLT note
I appreciate your email. I am not surprised, and I received something similar although less explicit. I have left a note on user talk:nraden that explains what would be necessary for unblocking. Let us hope that they take the advice. ··coelacan07:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please review my new article on this subject and support its inclusion.. I have re-written it and added aditional sources. Thanks Callelinea03:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been on wiki very long and so far most of my edits have been in articles related to the LGAT category. There is a common link between LGAT and Scientology in that they have both been accused of being cults. Therefore, I have also edited in a couple of Scientology-related articles. I am not a Scientologist. I actually know very little about what Scientology is, and I prefer it that way. The less I specifically know about a controversial subject, the easier I find it to be objective and maintain NPOV in my edits and comments.
I say this for two reasons. First, because I have an adjenda, that adjenda is NPOV. And second, to acknowledge that I have edited in articles where COFS has also edited. I don't specifically know him, but I am aware of him and of the on-going discussions about him.
That being said, I noticed that you recently posted 4 consecutive warnings to COFS. I have not looked at the nature of the edits, and therefore do not know if he violated any rules or not. Since you warned him, I believe it is safe to assume that he violated rules. If he did, he deserves to be warned or blocked, in whatever measure as befits the offense. I am not, in any way, questioning your right or your decision to warn him. Wiki operates under rules and guidelines and those must be followed.
The reason for my posting here was to give you my personal opinion on the manner of your warnings, as it relates to 4 consecutive warnings. I feel that four consecutive warnings can, and will, be viewed as 4 separate warnings which were sequentially ignored. I believe this can, and will, be used as compound evidence of misconduct on the part of COFS. If you believe that multiple edits across a number of articles qualifies for an escalated level of warning, I would respectfully suggest that you remove the lower warnings and leave the highest level warning which you believe applies.
I see that this situation is being commented on at one of the admin boards. It appears that Justanother is voicing similar concerns there and I did not wish to be perceived as tag-teaming you. I simply wanted to give you my thoughts on how it looks to me as a third party.
John, I think the warnings were a mistake. This user was pushing POV quite blatantly. In light of past abuses by this user, an immediate block would have been more appropriate. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, you may very well be correct. And whether you issue a single level-4 Final-warning or an immediate block is not something I would even question. I didn't stop by to defend anyone's conduct or to challenge your view of misconduct. Abuse should be dealt with, period.
And, I believe I understand your thinking/reasoning. You warned for each event, which seems proper. My concern is that 4 consecutive warnings could easily be misperceived or misused in the future. Though it demonstrates that you considered the conduct a serious violation, it also gives an appearance of something that didn't happen. Specifically it appears that you were repeatedly warning him and that he was repeatedly ignoring. I wouldn't question a single 4-day block, but I might question 4 consecutive 1-day blocks.
That'll teach me to post a followup without looking around. I see that you already struck down your additional warnings. I hadn't gotten that from your post. *embarassed look* Now that I look even closer, you'd already done that a few minutes before I posted my first message. (I didn't have his page on watch). *really embarrassed look* -Feel free to archive this at will. :/ Lsi john21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't feel embarrassed. Your point was well taken. If somebody needs a higher warning level, I should justify it with comments, rather than doing multiple warnings for multiple edits all at once. You're right about that being potentially unfair. I'd never thought about it like that. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Durova, award Jehochman the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for a swift and efficient response to a disruptive campaign that may have been a script-driven attempt to carry a business grievance onto Wikipedia. DurovaCharge!08:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Baidu-serp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tony Sidaway04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry for creating a mess! Could you note such things in your edit summary, to help people like me. I'm sometimes in need of a clue. Jehochman☎ / ✔18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm confused -- what was the potentially defamatory thing I'm supposed to have added to the Britt Ekland article? It happens to be absolutely true that she hosted an ELECTRIC BLUE video. I've still got it on tape somewhere, if it matters. Dolmance16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that may be perfectly true, but with biographies we have to be especially careful to cite reliable sources. Watching the video yourself and then posting is original research. Some prudish people might think less of somebody for getting involved with such a video. I don't, but we have to think about the big picture. JehochmanTalk08:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jehochman. I would like to provide more information regarding MUGEN NoE:
MUGEN Network of Excellence
The MUGEN network of Excellence aims to structure and shape a world-class framework of European scientific and technological excellence in the field of “murine models for immunological disease”, to advance understanding of the genetic basis of disease and to enhance innovation and translatability of research efforts. MUGEN’s specific mission is to bring together different expertise from academic and industrial laboratories in order to study human immunological disease by integrating the participant institutions’ strengths in immunological knowledge with new approaches in functional genomics. By removing barriers to progress and promoting the synergistic interaction of scientists from various disciplines integrated, MUGEN expects to bring Europe a competitive advantage in the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic tools.
Through its Joint Programme of Activities, MUGEN aims to:
1. Systematically study animal models for immune diseases and processes through the application of functional genomic platforms (transgenesis, targeted and random mutagenesis, expression profiling and bioinformatics).
2. Integrate the outstanding research experience and capacities of each network participant to allow the efficient application of post-genomic approaches to generate new knowledge in immunological diseases and processes. Such knowledge is expected to lead to novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools.
3. Ensure spreading of excellence, optimal use and dissemination of the knowledge generated through the network beyond the boundaries of MUGEN, by integrating competencies to train researchers, to encourage knowledge transfer, to address innovation related aspects of research and to raise the public awareness of scientific research issues.
To achieve this goal, MUGEN is bringing together expertise from 14 leading research institutes, 5 major universities and 5 biotechnology companies from seven E.U. member states as well as Switzerland and the US. MUGEN will be co-funded by the EU with 11 M€ over a five year period (2005-2009). MUGEN participants will share information and technology platforms and will develop a coordinated agenda of scientific events in order to communicate their scientific achievements to a wider scientific audience as well as to the general public
Please study the description carefully and ask for evaluation from a wikipedia user with strong academic background especially in biology. Thank you in advance.Afantitis
Could we finally ban IP address 208.201.146.137 from editing? They have made four separate edits to Common Cause since their last warning not to, which was their second warning on this issue. Do Administrators actually do this sort of thing, or do they just bask in the glory of being administrators? XINOPH | TALK11:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of basking. Seriously, some of these edits are pretty gnomish. There's a difference between spinning an article and just maintaining some non-controversial facts. Also, consider that they may have 50 people working in that office going through a single router that has one IP address. They may just be clueless. We might try to contact them and offer to help by explaining that they should use the article talk page to request changes instead of creating the appearance (and possible the fact) of conflict of interest. JehochmanTalk04:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been notified of a current controversy regarding onefortyone and his allegations against myself. I am not sure where to start with all this. His main allegation from everything he has posted seems to be that I am a sock of Ted Wilkes thus of DW. Not sure how to answer that except that if you or anyone else dealing with this situation brought to you wish to know any information about me or from me feel free to ask. I'll start by endorsing a checkuser of my IP address per other users - particulary those above. If you wish to address me in email let me know and we can work that out. CharlesMatthews, Flonight and other administrators have worked with me in the past and can answer some questions. Please check the article in question Elvis Presley for the reasoning behind what myself-Rikstar-and Steve along with others have been doing and where we see this going. With that - again I am fully open to any questions you may have either through email or here or elsewhere. --Northmeister05:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't put too much faith in the allegations against you, and I don't think anyone else does either. I suggest you avoid confrontation with Onefortyone. Let the community handle any problems. You should look at WP:DR and use those avenues first if you get into editing conflicts with other users. You may also want to pledge to yourself that you will never do more than one revert. I've done this, and it helps me avoid stress. Wikipedia is a very big place. There are so many things to work on, there's no point in getting bogged down with content disputes. JehochmanTalk05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bias against blogs is very great, even when published by an expert. I have come across it myself. Specifically when the blog is written by a professional historian or other expert in the subject many do not accept it as a source quoting Wikipedia:Verifiability - blogs. I wonder if it might be a good idea to emphasize that quoting a blog if its written by a professional researcher etc is acceptable. OF course if you read the article carefully it clearly implies that such blogs are ok, however I have met many who would deny that.
Helliumballoon, I presume. I recently made a few little edits to WP:V to hopefully clarify that. The media is unimportant. What matters is the level of editorial control, review, fact checking and responsibility. Blogs are often, but not always, deficient. We need to help educate people that there are legitimate blogs in the world.
By the way, I think you are fighting a losing battle, and probably wrong too, with that legal article being discussed over at WP:COIN. You can improve your Wiki-cred by backing down and following the good advice you are being given over there. Try to find a common understanding with your opponents by explaining your situation and asking them what you should do. Just my 2 cents... JehochmanTalk04:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have let the other editors do as they seem fit. I only wish to emphasize the importance of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. A minority of blogs are written by experts in their field. However in my discussions it seemed that even the ones in this category were written off as 'just blogs' and unworthy. (This issue was tangential to what was going on in the aforementioned article.) Heliumballoon06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added sourced content to the rape article. I am trying to balance this article so that the feminist falsehoods, fraud and misrepresentation about rape as shown in so many sources from WITHIN feminism are corrected. Please spare me reactive reverts. Anacapa02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no right to claim point of view when you are yourself censoring content like the following [1]. This rape article is full of well-documented falsehoods and misrepresentations from a group of political ideologues trying to pander to their pov about the topic. I have every right to be bold as long as I bring in sourced content.Anacapa02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to remove the COI and Neutrality templates as we seem to have settled into an agreement to only voice our thoughts on the discussion page and leave the edits to others. I don't either article (T.S. Wiley or The Wiley Protocol) are complete, but they're OK for the time being. Neil Raden 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to look at these articles in detail this week, but you could make this suggestion on the talk page, and allow one of the uninvolved editors to make that change. I wouldn't object if somebody else agrees to do it. JehochmanTalk04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are pandering to point of view by censoring, slandering and otherwise misrepresenting me to protect false, fruadulent and misrepresentative feminist ideologies/political agendas. I use sourced content, I discuss many of my edits in advance and the content I add/edit is intended to allow balanced factual representation of issues that gender-feminists have been accused (by other feminists) of routinely falsifying, misrepresenting and/or censoring. If you have particular concerns, I will be glad to discuss them with you, but you have no right warn me when I am following legitimate NPOV policies, making bold but not scurrilous edits and challenging widely known reverse-sexist feminist fearmongering on issues like rape.
I am going to bring in an administrator now to look my edits over to make sure they comply with wiki policy. In the meantime, I will refrain from edits to the rape page. However, I expect these false accusations and the usual totalitarian tactics that are so common on feminism-related articles to stop now. As anyone can see from a glance at the latest attempt I made to correct reverse sexist censorship about female forms of rape on the rape discussion page, I am making a good faith attempt to be balanced. Can you say the same about yourself vis a vis misandric feminist political or ideological agendas?
As I said before, you have no right to claim point of view when you are yourself censoring sourced content which refers the following [2]. This rape article is full of well-documented falsehoods and misrepresentations from a group of political ideologues trying to pander to their pov about the topic. I have every right to be bold as long as I bring in sourced content. Just because you don't LIKE this content doesn't mean it is bad content.Anacapa 02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Anacapa18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a hotel on a *miserably atrocious* slow dialup connection ... can hardly get articles to load to look at them, and it takes me a couple of hours just to review my watchlist. I saw on Raul654's talk page that he will run through FAC sometime this weekend, and he's been traveling recently. You might want to leave a brief note on his talk page summarizing the situation (very brief), as he's got so much to get through. Sometimes he restarts long FACs, sometimes he just lets them run longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody posted a pic on Matt Cutt's page with me in it, which I think is pretty cool. My question is, is it ok to edit the page and link my name in the pic description to my blog, chris-hooley.com? I found this page while doing a vanity search for my name on Google on page 5, and I don't want people to think I am trying to spam. I just think it would be cool if my name linked to my personal blog on that pic.
What do you think?
btw I am not the biggest wikipedian. I just realized I sent you this message because you had some input on the Matt Cutts page. If this isn't proper etiquette let me know. I hate when people think I am being a jerk lol
also I showed this to a friend of mine and he changed the name in the pic as a joke. I asked him to change it back
Hey, Chris. I saw that edit and revert. We probably can't link to your blog from the caption, but you should enjoy having your name on that article. Do you happen to have any good pictures of SEOs? Post them on your blog with a statement that you license them GDFL. I (or anyone else) can then copy those photos to Wikipedia, and you should get a link credit from the photo page so people can confirm the license. That's standard practice. JehochmanTalk21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Durova, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)"
-Quote-You/Jehochman
I was trying to rebuttle to a comment that was made about my profile. I was accused of being a sock puppet of some French guy (Le Grand Citrouilles or something). Why were you thalking about the "sandbox?" This makes absolutely no sense.
As a suggestion, perhaps a short written note would hvae been more clear than a level 1 vandalism template, especially since he's new. Seems to be cleared up though. LeeboT/C20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally deleted half of the page because it was an older version that I edited (I got a link), it was an accident. DaGrandPuba02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that you were working on this for so long. Well, I left a comment to support the nomination. It was a bumpy ride, wasn't it? SEO has at least some coverage by the big media. Affiliate marketing if unfortunately not as lucky. References outside the industry are scarce. It would be great, if you could help me a little with the article to make it up to "good article" after the SEO article was accepted as featured. I can be also proud a bit, because some content came from me. I was more active at the talk page though. Well, it's a start. :) Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment. Jonathan, I also emailed Danny Sullivan, Aaron Wall, Rand Fishkin, Jaimie Sirovich, Michael Gray, Kris Jones, Liana (Li) Evans, Ahmed Bilal, Rhea Drysdale, Loren Baker, Raj Dash, Gemme van Hasselt, Jessica Bowman, Cameron Olthuis, Tetsuto Yabuki aka Halfdeck, Matt McGee and Andy Beard. If only a few more respond, great. This will reinforce the authority and quality of the article. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go easy. If you look at WP:CANVASS we need to be careful not to overdo it, or pick people based on specific views we know them to hold. Also, users who aren't experienced Wikipedians won't carry much weight, if any. We are doing nicely already and are on track to get featured article. JehochmanTalk20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going broad to get people with different SEO/SEM background to comment. Some people I even disagree with on almost every subject :). Some are social media guys, affiliate marketers, SEMs, journalists, white hat, gray hat and dark gray hat (:)) SEO. Most are not professional SEO who could be seen as biased, but each of them knows the subject enough to provide valuable comments and feedback. I asked them to leave their comments at the review page about the quality of the references used in the article. On the article itself too, if they want to, but that is up to each of the people themselves. They should only add a comment themselves if they have a Wikipedia account already. I told them to send the comments to me, if they don't. Some do have one for sure, but not checking in too often so a message on their talk page will do no good. I did not ask anybody to vote on anything. I can provide you with the copy of the email I sent, if you would like to. The people who care at least about who is cited about what in any publication will hopefully comment on that and the rest I don't care. I actually hope that at the end of this maybe some other and may be even better references surface. I could have asked my mom about her oppinion, but she does not even know what SEO is :). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. With SES China, SES Italy and the upcoming SMX are most of the people I wrote to busy anyway. I hoped for 2-3 additional opinions, which would not hurt. What is the next step after that btw.? I never spent time on finding that out. The quality of the articles in affiliate marketing need all way too much work to even start thinking about it :(. Again, good job Jonathan, I know how much work it is. It's a hell of a lot more work than a simple blog post. I can tell you that hehe. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Pick another article? As I said in the past, the affiliate marketing article is dear to my heart :) .. also the internet marketing article is in desperate need, the compensation methods are also a mess. I created a template for internet marketing in an attempt to get some structure into the whole subject. Well, I could go on and on and on :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer a rather non-internet marketing article, how about ASCII art this is the article that is for me the second most important article after affiliate marketing. It became a featured article candidate in 2004 once, but was rejected. It decayed over time and was only a shadow of itself when I looked at it last year. I used to be a very famous ASCII artist back in the days and the poor availability of information and original resources made me put up a whole site about the subject [4]. Another famous artist called RaD Man is also an active conservationist and evangelist of text art. He is also a Wikipedian. I spent a lot of time on the article and try to get it back to the status of good article. If you wonder about the references to my site, let me tell you this. A lot of resources is not available online. I had to digg through old Cd's and stuff I archived on floppy disks, then quick 80 tapes and then Cd's. That stuff was mostly distributed through BBS' and sceners today are not publishing a lot on the Web. Most of the things happen to this day on the Internet relay chat (IRC). It's a shame and even I have problems finding some of the original stuff somewhere. Stuff I know that it is there, because I have seen it myself 10 and more years ago, when I did not think about that ASCII and ANSI art would be a dying art and become even a problem to display properly on modern computers. Think about it. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think your idea of a separate space to dicuss the text in COI cases is useful because it would make a clear distinction between the disputed text and the editor's COI. Rather than broadly censuring editors for having any kind of COI (as happens on the current noticeboard), COI disputes should really focus on the the text's merits (notability, npov, original research). In my case a COI alert was used as a way to push POV on an article. Now anytime I post editors invoke my COI, and I have to inform them that COI does not trump content policies.
An external "disputed text with COI" noticeboard would also fix a problem I had where I took the disputed text to RFC [5] and some editors used my COI to try to influence the results (which is against policy). Focussing on the disputed text alone would also stop some editors trying to "out" other editor's identity. -- Sparkzillatalk!06:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on Mahalo's payroll, I just noticed the Twitter post from Jason Calacanis did a quick search and I figured it's worth a mention in his bio (after all, we do try and include relevant information) -- Tawker22:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't think you were on his payroll, but it's a distinct possibility that some other editors might be. There's nothing wrong with adding stuff that's properly sourced, but I am watching this very closely because a swarm of anonymous IPs have been trying to add that link to Mahalo. I just added it myself, since you provided that source, so hopefully that will make them happy.
I'd say it's notable enough per WEB that it's not speedy material. A quick Google news made it easy enough to reference and making the WSJ (in the news section, not the ads) usually is a pretty good indicator of notability. I think it's a fact of life that people edit articles possibly about themselves from just about everywhere, (up to and including the White House.) As long as the stuff they post is NPOV and referenced I don't see it being a massive problem. It's PR editing that becomes the problem. -- Tawker23:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the edit I made to the Mahalo page, I added an internal link to the new Mahalo.com page - that's it. Clearly that falls within the boundaries of acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, does it not? Whether the new page survives speedy deletion or not is another matter. And for the record, I'm not a Mahalo insider, just someone watching the process unfold.
It might be best to avoid the "v word" when it's coming from an account w/ good edits. The "v word" is best reserved for page blanking , ALL CAPS additions and the likes like that. Good faith efforts (even if COI) don't exactly fit the definition. -- Tawker23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ok. But people can't just delete stuff from pages. That's pretty serious. I'll modify the warning later when I have a moment. JehochmanTalk01:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to someone else to actually add it to the main page. I don't usually like adding articles I've edited, it kind of feels wrong to me. -- Tawker01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain me why you removed the link on the PageRank article? It doesn't violate WP:EL and it was there for more than a year. It explains the mathematics of the algorithm (e.g. Jacobi iteration). You said "Please discuss on the talk page" - I discussed the insertion of this link more than a year ago. However, the link was removed without any discussion. --Doc z11:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mahalo.com, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, sorry about the Search Engline Land delete AFD message. I looked on Google for more sources but couldn't find much. I reckon it'd be best merged with the CEO's main page.
I also noticed that you had some discussions and suggestions regarding the COI2 template. As a person who has recently been the subject of a COI discussion I feel that the current template does not reflect the policy well. I made a comment and a suggested text here [6] I didn't realise at the time that this issue had already been discussed extensively, but I would be interested in your comments nonetheless as I feel the current policy discourages new editors from trying to improve articles by finding more sources. Thank you. -- Sparkzillatalk!09:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call 'em like you see 'em. That's fine. Your logic is reasonable. As for the COI warning messages, I support changing them to include affirmative information about what COI editors can do to help improve articles in spite of a COI. JehochmanTalk12:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind writing a short comment supporting the addition of affirmative information about what COI editors can do to help improve articles in spite of a COI after my comment on the talk page? [7] Thanks. -- Sparkzillatalk!23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you weak article, Dynamic Submission has real references in books that can be pick up at the local bookstore. Stating that this article is COI is like saying that if I write an article about MS windows and I work at a store that sells MS Window there is a conflict of interest. I think you are just attacking my article because I afd yours, and for good reason. Write a good article, and I would not object. I would even help! SEO & SEO is 90% of my day.
OK, let's work together then. I've written a good article, and a featured article, so I know how, but I am spread very thin. There are lots of Internet marketing articles that need attention, and I would welcome your help. JehochmanTalk13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to help and I planned to help. You must understand that I received a lecture about how articles 'should' be written and how the cite's needed to be and if they did not meet the criteria to afd them. Stating this, I planned to help with the Internet Marketing article and help you rewrite the SEM article as an SEM article and not a subset of SEO but I need to get the cite's together. This is why I suggested the merge. It can always be seperated later when it gets big enough to stand on its own. I spent hours trying to figure out what I did wrong and I rewrote the Dynamic Software article using the Microsoft Office article as a template. I wrote this article because I own this product personally and it does a good job. Not because it is a product that we sell. We dont produce the product we just sell it like a store sells office. To prevent any coi complaint I did not put an external link to our site. So maybe you can help with this if you want to. My expertise is in Internet Marketing and Internet Access. I own an ISP called AKC, www.akc.com and yup we sell this product but there was no link to the akc website or dynamicsoftware.com site on the article and this product has not only primary cite's but also secondary cites, won awards, was written about in PC Magazine, is in Search Engine Optimazation for Dummies by Peter Kent, etc, etc. But every time I start working on it, it gets deleted for some reason or another. The problem is I truly believe it belongs in wiki.
Anyway, I just have not had time, but I will be back and will help you with the Internet Marketing article. I wanted you to merge the SEM article to the SEO article because the Internet Marketing article already has a cleanup tag on it and did not want it to be more complicated to get rid of it.
I am sorry if I have caused you any trouble. My concern with merging SEM into SEO is that it has to be done very, very carefully because SEO is a featured article and I don't want it to get messed up. Internet marketing is already a bit of a mess, so adding another section there won't make things much worse. Anyhow, if we do merge into SEO, the section could be called something like "Closely related fields" and cover SEM and social media marketing (another article in need of serious help). On a philosophical level, I am an inclusionist and prefer to keep articles around and fix them up instead of deleting.
I listed the article in Wikipedia:Deletion review to get it undeleted, maybe you can leave a comment there. I actually dont know. I never appealed to deletion review before.
I've already recovered the article! You can find it here: User:Jehochman/Sandbox. Let's work on this a bit, and then let me recreate the article in a day or two under my username. There's no need for undeletion. That will avoid any possible confusion going forward. Unfortunately, the first edit you ever made to Wikipedia create a strong appearance of COI with respect to this article. If I create the article, this makes it much less likely that it will be deleted again. JehochmanTalk17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk·contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.
The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.
The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.
While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:
Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.
Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.
Your comments on the Terrell Newman page are petty, ridiculous and inaccurate. Please stop interfering and leave it to other editors. I am not Taylor"s publicist. I am his voluntary webmaster. There is a big difference. I am not a professional publicist. Many of the profiles of writers and composers on Wiki have no doubt been contributed by industry professionals. If you use the same logic you have used on this page, you would eliminate every profile of every living writer, composer, artist, actor etc.
Not really. The work is saved in the article history, so you can easily retrieve a copy. This article does not need examples reports. That crosses the line into advertising. With Wikipedia, your contributions will be edited mercilessly, so before investing huge amounts of time, you may want to discuss additions on the talk page to make sure they are appropriate. JehochmanTalk22:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I wrote in the talk page? I am going to split this article up. The example hold true for many software products and I am going to include them--Akc900022:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add those tags until I am done please, what did you come here within 5 minutes of me working on this?
This article is on my watch list. Please remove the example report. It's blatant advertising. Please, I'd rather we agree on this than for me to have to spend the time to file a report at WP:COIN. What exactly is your connection with this software? Do you sell it?
I spent my time to restore NPOV to this article, and you've gone and turned it back into a marketing brochure. At some point I will stop assuming good faith, and instead assume that you are trying to play us for fools. JehochmanTalk22:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am under the impression that Raritan Computer already survived an AfD, though I'm not sure how. If so, then it is ineligible for prod. For this reason alone, I have removed your {{prod}} on the article. Lsi john19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OOPs. I can't imagine how this survived AfD. Would you be willing to nominate it a second time. This article needs to go away. JehochmanTalk20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually frustrated with the editors there. A quick google search yields multiple references to Raritan Computing. However, the article was written by a company exec without sourcing about a year ago.
I became involved during a 3O request, and strongly encouraged them to obtain some secondary sourcing. Several editors (and admins) have slowly been removing unsourced statements, (i believe) in the hopes of encouraging them to find some sourcing. It's not an article I wish to 'flesh out' and I'm not sure that any of those google sources are more than advertising mentions in 'sales copy' snips.
At this point, I'm unconvinced that anyone will bother to add sourcing, so yes, an AfD is probably appropriate. As for me nominating it.. well.. that'd be something new for me to learn, I suppose. ;)
The AfD process is a bit of a bother, but they have step by step instructions that are very easy to follow. AfD is a good solution. Either somebody will step forward and turn this into a real article (which hasn't happened since the first AfD last year), or else the article goes bye-bye. JehochmanTalk20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted a bit more of the unsourced information. This is an example of some sourcing that could be used. It doesn't appear to be a small insignificant company. There just doesn't seem to be anyone who wants to write a promo piece on this company with reliable sourcing. (And promo is what it would really be, imo). I'm torn, it could be a legitimate article, but it isn't right now, and doesn't look like it ever will be. Lsi john20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to find news sources. For example, Mahalo.com was recently listed on the main page in the Did You Know section, so it is possible to write a good corporate article, but not about every corporation. Size isn't the most important factor. If they are just running along, doing the same old thing, and nobody is covering them, we don't have anything to write about. JehochmanTalk21:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but I'd hold off on calling this a wheel war. Eagle101 was responding to an unblock request, and it's not necessary to discuss with the blocking admin in that situation (although it's almost always a very good idea). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've responded on my talk page. If you have further questions feel free to ask. In short I think he deserves the chance to pick himself up. If he returns to the behaviour I would suggest a week long block, and if he returns with the same behaviour then entertain an indef block. Akhilleus, I think I left you a message on your talk... if I did not feel free to slap me. —— Eagle101Need help?00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, I didn't delete anything on purpose. That was an edit conflict. I was copying my responses from the lower box to the upper box. JehochmanTalk15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up: we don't do indef blocks of IP addresses because IP addresses tend to change hands. The longest I've ever blocked a static IP address is one year - it had posted a suicide note, then when it returned to vandalize more pages after I'd contacted the Pennsylvania state police I imposed that block. More normal is a few days, weeks, or perhaps months. I've put 72 hours on the IP you suggested. If the problems resume after that block expires I'll bump it right up to three months. DurovaCharge!16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have my request. I will not communicate with you further about this issue.
In good faith I explained to Durova partly why this is personal. I will not go into it any further than I already have and I will not accept personal attacks or harassment.
In all honesty, I don't care what you went through. Your situataion is not mine.
John, I've tried to work with you, but you keep using words like "personal attack", "defamation" and "harassment" to deflect scrutiny of your actions. When you enter into highly contentious situations, such as noticeboard discussions, you must understand that your edit history will be scrutinized and criticized. JehochmanTalk04:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to scrutinize my edit history. You are not welcome to speculate on my motives, my offline activities, or to mis-represent my edit history. You are welcome to say that you believe I look guilty, as that is simply bad faith on your part. You are not welcome to say that I am guilty of anything unless you have proof of the claim, as that would be an unfounded personal attack.
As you have demonstrated bad faith and do not acknowledge that your actions were wrong, I have nothing further to say to you. This is my last communication with you. Lsi john04:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that I had not come across this earlier, when I may have been able to provide some useful input. Lsi john is one of the most civil, polite and helpful editors I have encountered here in WP. He has chosen to identify himself as a Christian, and to edit according to those principles as they relate to WP policy, rules and guidelines. I would suggest that, until very recently, he comported himself to those standards exemplarily.
As you have noted, he is fairly new in the WP environment. As such he is not always familiar with the conventions of language used here. It can sometimes be difficult to match the appropriate phrases with the desire to communicate the feelings and points one wants to make, and it is sometimes very easy to misunderstand what is being meant. Lsi john used phrases and terms that are common outside of WP but which, because of the application of WP:CIVIL, carry a far greater import here. I feel that in attempting to speak his mind and convey the depth of his feelings in various matters that he may have transgressed some boundaries of what may be deemed polite.
Some of the comments previously made about and in respect of Lsi john have not, in my opinion, reflected well upon the individuals concerned. In defending one or two participants of a debate, they being both a minority and also adherents of the article subject, it was (strongly) inferred that Lsi johns actions were tainted by association and ulterior motives. From what I know of Lsi john I believe that he would have been deeply offended by the suggestion that his motives could be questioned; he was doing what he believed correct according to his principles.
I understand why Lsi john has been reprimandedrequested to moderate his use of certain phrases. He may have been considered to have violated WP's policies and guidelines. That he was not receiving the assumption of good faith that WP also requires of all editors, that his motives for rather than the context of his arguments were questioned, and his possible relationship with those whose cause he decided to assist, is no excuse for the actions he took and for which he has been admonishedasked to temper. However, I would like it recorded that I feel it is unfortunate that a good and conscientious person has persuaded himself that he needs to step away from contributing from WP for a while resulting from the pressure he perceived himself under for having acted according to his beliefs.
Lastly, I would point out that I do not share Lsi johns faith (whatever it is), or that of the Church of Scientology, or any Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, pagan, etc. belief system or other form of superstition. I simply felt I had to do what Lsi john had originally done and get myself involved in helping as far as I am able. It is simply a record of how I feel about the matter. Thank you. LessHeard vanU20:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware that Lsi john has been reprimanded. This is news to me. I've asked him to be more civil, several times in various ways. He's been interceding in a variety of heated situations. Unfortunately, this has led to miunderstandings. I am sorry if he feels stress, and hope that in time, a common understanding will develop. JehochmanTalk21:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, he has not been reprimanded (that is, officially) nor admonished so I have struck those terms and substituted the underline text. Again (and this is not WP:POINT, just a happy coincidence) this indicates how nuances of what may be said or implied in another place becomes a more serious concern here. I was addressing a couple of your very civil rebukes (informal notification of non-adherence to policy/guidelines with suggestions on more appropriate terminology) in your correspondence with Lsi john. I hope this clarifies my words.
He does go into contentious areas, I acknowledge. One such is where he and I met (we were on the same side of the debate). I recognise the inherent challenges, and am prepared to take the consequences, in a manner which I am uncertain that Lsi john does. Perhaps his faith in what is right does not allow him to make such judgements? I hope he returns refreshed from his break, and continues to contribute as he feels appropriate (but with a better understanding of the use of appropriate language). Cheers. LessHeard vanU21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have endorsed a view in the RFC. I recognise most of the other names, and know these users' histories and positions regarding the situation; however, you and BScar23625 are new.
No connection whatsoever. I just noticed the post on WP:ANI. I'm also a wikisleuth, and I've helped ban a number of disruptive editors from Wikipedia. The case you've filed is overly long and doesn't serve your interests. I recommend you spend some time at WP:COIN. We need all the help we can get, and you'll learn a lot about how to conduct investigations. Ultimately, you want to file a case with a small number of the very best diffs that directly prove your point. The shorter and simpler your case, the more likely you are to succeed. JehochmanTalk17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of 'minimum amount of data for maximum effect' works well when well-localisable problems are at issue, which appears to be the case in a typical conflict of interest situation. However, this case is about long-term patterns, and it can not be illustrated by any small set of singular diffs, no matter how well-chosen. Digwuren12:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at WP:CSN#User:Bus stop you can see an example of how to handle such a situation. The RFC/U seems to be over, but if you have further problems, try to focus your complaint for better results. If you can't focus the complaint, that may indicate that you should hold off until there is a stronger case. JehochmanTalk07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely discredited, and if you read it, it doesn't actually say anything. The policies on sources are V and NOR. We tried to develop a new summary at WP:ATT, and it was policy for a few weeks, but it was overturned, and so we're back to relying on V and NOR. SlimVirgin(talk)07:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "shameful"; just discredited, which it is. It has always been controversial because it was chopped around too much, was badly written, and it often contradicted other policies and even itself. SlimVirgin(talk)07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johochman - thanks for the feedback. Sorry if I'm posting to the wrong place, I'm just trying to work it all out - new to Wik and not so internet savvy. I just wanted to say that I think the way the article on Online advertising is written could be cleaned up - It's just not well written. For a start, Online and Advertising should both have caps etc. Could I have a go at rewriting some of the text? I won't put any new links in. I'm just starting to understand the link thing as well, so I may have added a link to my site which is where the article was posted and that may not have been the best link - perhaps the link should have been to the source of the information which was from an ad agency that does stats etc, that's where I got my info from for the article I wrote. The last figures quoted on that page about Online Advertising were from 2006, recently stats came out (2007)showing a significant movement away from print, tv and radio advertising and towards advertsisng online, and this info may be of use to someone doing some research on advertising.
This happens from time to time when you do investigations. I've done my best to seek alternatives but this seems to be the only solution for this dilemma.
Hiya, and yes, I agree on the logo. But I figured it would be nice to ask, and see if I could get a cc-by-sa 2.5 license to put an image in the Commons. :) As for dr_sears (talk·contribs), no, I never got a reply. --Elonka05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We talked about it a bit on the JP talkpage. My own opinion is that he's a very low traffic editor (only a handful of edits in 2007), and that he's not actually edit-warring on any article, he's just popping up on the talkpage, which I think is perfectly legitimate as long as he's been clearly identified as being questionable (which he has). Also, be sure to check the talkpage of CHT9 (talk·contribs), since I had specifically asked her to participate at the RfC. It's probably worth noting their edits on the RfC as {{spa}} accounts though. The question is, should we also mark Rhode Island Red as such? :) --Elonka05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, RIR's editing pattern is very odd, but we have all types here. The real problem for NSA is that their own websites and branding are all screwed up, so this Wikipedia article has more prominence in the search results than it should. If they fix their website(s), monitor this article, and report any nonsense to WP:COIN, that would probably solve their immediate business problem. Did he drive off Julia Havey? She seems to have quit out of frustration. That's bad. JehochmanHablar05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Estoy hablando :-) Congrats, and good luck on the main page. I've sworn off of helping vandalfight on the main page, as it frustrates me too much. Have fun ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many before you have ventured guesses because they assumed some credo prejudiced my decisions in site conflicts and the contradictory patchwork has been an occasional source of chuckles. You know what it actually is, and if I continue to act as a neutral Wikipedian may the edit warriors make many more off target accusations. Cheers, DurovaCharge!15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for participating in the straw poll. There, you commented:
To begine, information from reliable sources should be added to the existing article. The article may end up supporting, or denouncing the hypothesis, depending on what the available sources say. If the article becomes sufficiently long, this topic can be broken out into a separate article. Please be careful not to create a POV fork.
Talk:Cancer already has a lot of information from reliable sources, that some editors of cancer have refused to allow the contributor to put in the article. Hence the proposal for a separate page. The topic is complicated and clearly the article will be long; it would be a long tangent for most readers of cancer. Including me. My interest is in germ cell tumors. --Una Smith05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You propose to create a POV fork, which is the wrong approach. Add the information to the existing article. If you cannot reach an agreement with the other editor, use one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution services. You need to deal with the disagreement. JehochmanHablar05:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments regarding my post to the RIR RfC. It took quite a while to sort through the RfC and weed out much of the *bs*.
However, I'm concerned about Durova's post. It is another 'suggestive' post that seems to not be entirely based on good faith. The editor stated clearly - 100% no present or past involvment. I think it is out of line for Durova to then 'insist' on an explanation, based solely on an IP and the location of the ISP and refer to a short commute. (This 'request for an explanation' is essentially calling RIR a liar, which is the same type of thing she did to me).
RIR never said s/he had no knowledge of the company. Nor did RIR say s/he had no personal opinion of the company. Durova's post very clearly 'implies' that RIR is lying, and I'm not comfortable with those types of posts.
I am not aware of any policy or rule that prohibits me from moving wrongfully located comments from the evidence to the talk page. I have no intention of reverting that. --Fahrenheit45103:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and leave comments here. Thanks. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Digwuren 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
