User talk:Wreid

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Internet research has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Tim1357 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we were doing the same thing at the same time. If you look at my notes you will see that I didn't want to reverse his edits. I made an editing mistake and them immediately changed it back to Buridan's edit. Sorry for the confusion. Its amazing that no one questioned the "External Links" section until I posted to it, now everyone wants to remove it. Go Figure! The irony is that I think a link to AOIR is appropriate but only if other such organizations are allowed. So I guess I am "allied" with AOIR's interest. In any event the result is what Buridan wished and I am in agreement. :-) Wreid (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you, perhaps, have a conflict of interest you'd like to share with us? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have a conflict is is on the side of fairness. AOIR and TCFIR have similar purposes. If AOIR is allowed to self promote (Buridan is a member as you are) then TCFIR should be allowed the same. If not, then neither should. Buridan has a well documented hostility to me personally and it appears that his "conflict of interest" is to not let the TCFIR share the stage. I have said over and over I am not opposed to AOIR and he has done exactly the opposite. It is not my interests you should be questioning. For the record again, I do not have a problem with the External Link section but if AOIR is allowed then TCFIR should not be excluded. If TCFIR is to be excluded then so should AOIR. I am asking for the rules, however interpreted, to be applied equally. Wreid (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bother I'm very sorry. I think I saw a section deletion and i clicked revert. I must not have seen your edit summary. Apologies : ) Tim1357 (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this take place. In either event I have been warned about reverts and am fearful of making whatevever change might be necessary. Thanks Wreid (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet research stub

I am in favor of creating an Intenet research - stub subcategory and putting all the research / studies organizations in it.

Wreid (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did my colleague in this dispute get warned?

I accept your warning. Wreid (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blog link at Alexander Halavais

Note that it is proper to link to the official website of an article's subject. See WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL. Please refrain from removing it, as it seems to be an act targeting that editor for other actions on this project. --64.7.166.10 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I requested arbritation on the matter and unless you are that arbiter what you have to say is not my concern. Since there are conflicting rules it appears that arbitration is the appropriate course. I am not going to do anything but wait on their judgement. I could care less if Halavais has a link in the bio. If he chooses to involve me by keeping his comments about me in his blog I have a legitimate concern under the rules of Wikipedia. He could end this dispute in an instant by simply removing me from his blog. I would be happy to remove my request for arbitration and not try to delete the link. It's really very simple and his choice.

For the record, I would never have visited his bio had I not known of the content of his blog and the WP rules about "Third Party" content. ICBW, but I don' think I have addressed him anywhere else in Wikipedia and I am aware of only one edit signed by him elswhere and I actually complemented him on that. "Halavais' edit is really very good. Wreid (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)"

So 64.7.166.10, your "act targeting that editor" is factually incorrect. BTW, when pinging your IP address it returns a timeout error, are you for real? It suggests that your motive is, at best, disengenuous. Since you did not sign your comment it puts your concerns in question.

Wreid (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Alex Halavais taught me the about the disengenuity of my pseudononymous behavior, no matter how well intended. Thanks for the advice and I would love to assume good faith but prudence suggests otherwise. Wreid (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given your stated off-wiki disputes with Alexander Halavais, I suggest you avoid editing at Alexander Halavais due to possible WP:COI. Instead, you could suggest edits on the talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment. Cheers. 130.132.143.49 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I made sure that I said or wrote nothing that couldn't be documented with his own words or from peer reviewed articles. Believe me I have much stronger opinions but it has been an excercise in self-control to not speculate. Actually, even the links that are not to his own site are referenced in his site. I have an agenda, and that was to show this community that I can disagree without being diagreeable. If you can find my "opinion" expressed in the article I will remove it. Check it out! By the way he is much more critical of himself in his blog than I am here. I am not ignoring your advice. Thank you! Wreid (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ani notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I inquire what incident is involved? Wreid (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops, forgot to notify you of that. (thanks Basket). the concern centers on your continued editing related to Alex Halavais, given that you have an admitted off-wiki conflict with him. 130.132.143.49 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may kick me off the wiki but I trully appreciate your intervention, thanks. Will I be given the opportunity to give input? Wreid (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Center For Internet Research

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Center For Internet Research, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://tcfir.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been blanked pending your verification of appropriate license. Please see the article's talk page for more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wreid. You have new messages at Talk:The Center For Internet Research.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Center For Internet Research

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Center For Internet Research, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Notice takenWreid (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Center for Internet Research for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Internet Research is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Internet Research until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe you will do what you think is correct. That said, the disputes that took place on Wikipedia because members of AOIR did not want to share the stage with either TCFIR or the organizations of Tim Berniers Lee.

I requested intervention and this is the first I have heard since 2010.

TCFIR has membership, directors and publications from notable figures. The membership rivals AOIR in numbers. The issue of "notability" is subjective at best. We feel that we have the right to some recognition but that of course will be decided by your editors.

As requested we have stayed away from Wikipedia. I don't wish to get involved in the edit war that happened in the past. We do feel that if you look at the editors involved you will see some unfairness. Particularly on the part of Buridan and Alex Halavais but they are not the only AOIR members involved.