You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
Drmies, NeilN, Softlavender, TonyBallioni, Cullen328, I'm adding here because Drmies' page is protected. Feel free to copy this to the thread there, though my intent is neither to prolong nor aggravate the discussion. Here are two cents, upon some reflection. As you likely know, the template to which I objected, and which hastened my departure, was the latest in a continuing string of largely gratuitous accretions to my IP talk pages. Received in that spirit, it seemed like more than enough. We all know that when someone walks away--or threatens to--from a longtime interest, the leaving is rarely precipitated by a single incident, nor are the contributing events confined to the immediate environment. In other words, Thewolfchild doesn't shoulder fault proportionate to my reaction. They just supplied the last bit of tinder.
But it is tinder. Unless an IP has engaged in systematically disruptive behavior, the placing of a location template that specifies an IP's town (this computer is private, and has no relevance to civic business) is for the most part neither constructive nor innocuous. If there's a good purpose for it, other than making the user of the IP squirm, it escapes me. For this reason, I encourage administrators to discuss tightening the guidelines re: the public sharing of such information. Years ago I was made familiar with the term 'soft mugging', referring to an especially aggressive form of New York City panhandling; this feels like a 'soft outing.' As far as I can tell, no thought was given to placing the template here, other than my having reverted vandalism by this account [2]. Twc then posted to the blocked IP [3], [4], and soon thereafter, here [5]. So it's possible to conclude that to some (many?) editors, all IPs look alike, and ought to be similarly identified.
Hi "99" (I believe you are identified as such?), first off, let me say that I hope you do return. From the reactions of some of the very experienced editors here, it appears you have been a very good contributer. However,I must ask, if your privacy is so important to you, why don't you register an account? You are choosing to have your IP very prominently displayed with every. single. edit. you make. Even if there were to be some kind of limitation imposed on the shared-ip template, the simple fact is there are numerous websites that provide geo-locating for IP addresses. As long as you allow people to know your IP, there will always be a way of finding out where you live and what ISP you use at the very least. With an account, no one can learn anything about you, except what you want them to know. It's unfortunate that template caused you such distress, that certainly was not my intent. I believe there is a benefit to this template, as I explained earlier. That said, I can appreciate wanting to protect your privacy, and while I do hope you continue contributing, I also hope you consider registering an account. Not only will it protect your IP address and negate the shared-ip telplate, it should also lead to fewer instances of other the other types of templates you mentioned that appear to have been aggravating for you. Anyway, this is now longer than I originally intended, so I'll just say, in short; I hope you stay and I hope you get an account. Cheers - theWOLFchild23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this so wasn't the time for a lengthy explanation of why I ought to register. Nor an occasion to tell me how easy it is to find out where I live. It was an opportunity to acknowledge that templating this account wasn't necessary, served no constructive purpose, and that the tools editors are given come with the expectation that they'll be used with informed discernment. Please don't comment here again. There's a thread at Drmies' page. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A beer for you!
I'm kind of bluffing with all this beer, cause I wish I could still drink like a young man, haha. All the best to you and yours! Drmies (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi fellow editors, this bio has been subject to promotional, unsourced edits for several years. Since I'm attempting to have less involvement here, maybe someone else can check this out. The most recent additions were, initially, copyright violations, and have been re-posted with quotation marks. Still, are they more than promotional blurbs, and is the critic notable enough that this merits inclusion? After this, the existential question is whether the subject is notable. If so, there may need to be article protection or some user blocks. Drmies, you helped out with this before. Thanks for any additional thoughts, and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello friends, this is another BLP undergoing recent tribulations, the push and pull of criticism and praise. On the one hand, I'm concerned that there's an interest in adding excessive criticism, particularly with respect to one book by the author; see also The Closing of the Western Mind for same. On the other, a new editor is trying to add passages from his own blog in defense--I've removed these twice now, and believe that there may be copyright infringement issues, too. More eyes are needed, and I suspect Drmies will have a good take on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that if it's a critique of the book it should be there, and if it's a critique of the historian it should be at the biography. Some is at both locations: see here. Prose that is not highlighted appears on both pages. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both need TLC. I'm not a big fan of all-negative criticism, but it may well be earned in this case. Perhaps more fruitful here is bringing them together under his biography.
That's some bad writing. Was this a hit job? David Bentley Hart's criticism is really of the man as well as the book; if there is more scope for the man in these critiques, we would have a good reason to merge all this in the biography, but we'd need to be careful lest we write up a hit piece ourselves. Still, these four (named) critics are severely notable academics. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stan Prager, I'm sorry, but your blog really doesn't help much--it would take much more than a blog post to fill the article with positive news (see WP:RS. I read the review--and the comments--and had this been published in a journal it would carry more weight, esp. since you do not appear to have an academic position in the field, unlike the four currently cited in the article on the book (and, of course, those citations were way too long). I assure you also that the editor who removed it had no malicious intent, though I invite you to continue learning about and editing on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a somewhat disturbed individual who has been banned from multiple sites on the web who has devoted his life to an attempt to damage the reputation of Dr. Freeman. This individual operates under multiple pseudonyms. I have deleted his last edit in "Academic Criticism" but honestly you guys really need to do something to lock this page down. This fellow posts wild things wherever he can to attack Charles Freeman. This page should be locked down so he does not get to do this again. -- S. Prager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan Prager (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,from L.A. Harvey. There is certainly some legitimate concern about this page. I have/had no intention of adding anything but simply making the point to Wikipedia that those who know Charles Freeman's works will know that his Egypt,Greece and Rome is regarded as the leading university textbook on the ancient world (see the OUP website page). Please look at this before you comment further. There is not even a mention of this in this article yet it is what he is known for within US/international scholarship.
The comments under Academic Criticism are not up to Wikipedia standards as it is not even clear to what they refer, a single book or the whole of his work. As they stand they are meaningless. You cannot believe that they offer an adequate reflection of a historian's work over twenty years. As even the briefest online search will show Freeman has a large academic following and I am not surprised that anyone who knows his work would expect better from Wikipedia. Locking down this page will simply perpetuate its inadequacies. Why not find someone who is prepared to make an INDEPENDENT assessment of his academic career under this heading. It is not difficult to find the sources for Charles Freeman's many books online.
As I have no further interest than one of legitimate academic concern about an entry which is clearly not up to the standards to which you aspire and unfair to a respected academic, I can now withdraw.If my deletion at least brought an important issue to your attention, I have succeeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.A.Harvey (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, L.A.Harvey. The criticisms are well sourced, and come from notable historians. We welcome assessments from WP:RELIABLE sources that support positive interpretations of his writings--merely claiming the briefest online search will show Freeman has a large academic following, is, as you well know, not itself very helpful. But surely there is more that can be found and added on the subject. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From L.A. Harvey Agree but the 'academic criticism' is meaningless as it is not clear what the 'myths' Freeman is supposedly perpetuating are- or are they simply academic arguments with which the cited authors disagree?. I also assume that en historiker is not an English speaker as 'the regular public readers' sounds like a Google translation from another more formal language- I have never heard such a phrase in English - what does it mean? Most of us are regular readers!!, some of us read in public too. I have no idea what 'merely by virtue of endless repetition 'means (especially as the 'myth' to which 'the endless repetition ' refers is not described). As this is an entry on a biography of an author who has a large number of works, it is also not clear whether these comments refer to the whole of his works- unlikely as he has tackled many different subjects.
I am even more convinced that I was right to delete this as it is not up to the standards of clarity that Wikipedia normally uses and the text adds nothing that is comprehensible. The fact that one can trace the citations means nothing if the original text is as muddled as this one.I can't see the point of allowing outsiders to edit if they can't take out text which is impossible to understand. Do you understand what he is talking about?
A normal Wikipedia entry starts with an overview, as here. It then fleshes out the overview in the main body of the article. Yet there is nothing on the last THIRTY years of Freeman's working life when it is clear from his extensive list of publications that he has had a full academic career including the Fellowship of a Royal Society, consultancy work, leading tours, etc,etc.
Luckily we do not need Wikipedia in this case as I have found an extensive biography on the Yale University Press website. I am sure that those who want to know about him will access that as it comes up high on a search engine and has the advantage of including extensive reviews, many by established academics, of his two Yale books.
Hi everyone. I am a little green with the Wiki system, and struggling to navigate into conversation mode. I hope this place is the appropriate forum for discussion :0
I have a lot of experience with, and enthusiasm for, INWO. I have tried to conform to the wiki guidelines, including the one about not uploading original research. I have therefore attempted to provide nothing but verifiable information from official sources in good faith. It is a little difficult, given that INWO is A) a dead game (out of print, no likelihood of continuation), hence a little obscure in the verifiable sources department, and B) one of the first card games to "grow up" online ie. whose sources were mainly online in the first place.
Nevertheless:
All information I have provided can be verified via the sources which are listed in both the General Reference and Reference sections of the INWO wiki entry. I have also access to a copy of The INWO Book, have read copies of files downloaded from the official game site at sjgames.com/inwo, including the latest rule book, card lists etc. I have a copy of Deluxe INWO, and most of the Assassins series. Information about the German cards come from a forum discussion at boardgamegeek.com which lists the cards in German - I had to translate those, and discovered that the 38 new ones listed at the boardgamegeek forum are also explained in detail at the official website sjgames.com, while the rest of the German cards were hilarious translations of INWO cards familiar to English speakers.
The entries that were removed for being "promotional" were an attempt to provide more accurate information to interested parties in light of fraudulent and predatory trade practices I have witnessed online with regards to this out-of-print game. I was trying to build upon the inaccurate efforts of a previous contributor who deemed it important enough to make a wiki entry about it.
Likewise the entries that smelled of manuals were my attempt to improve upon the interesting yet inaccurate contributions of a previous contributor.
And finally, the controversy stuff reflects a reality of kooky disreputable publications attributing conspiracy prophecies to INWO haha - you will never find anything about this from a reputable source unfortunately. Given the topic of the game, it does tend to attract a rather kooky sector of the community. Once again, I was attempting to add to the efforts of a previous contributor.
The INWO Book (1995) Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. [1]Illuminati: New World Order, Official Website. [2]sjgames.com/INWO German[3]World Domination Handbook v1.2[4]Boardgamegeek-INWO[5]Boardgamegeek-German INWO Forum[6]
I would really appreciate it if my contributions were restored, however I appreciate your comments and will make a better effort to tone down that which seems promotional.
I apologise for the delay in my response. As previously stated, I am a little new to wiki contributing. I hope the information provided is adequate. I have no interest in ownership of a wiki page, let alone war for such ownership lol. Just trying to help sorry.
No apology necessary, Ggroeneweg, but before I throw a bunch of acronyms at you, I need to point you to two important parts here: sources need to be secondary (independent of the subject) and reliable (that is, published with editorial oversight, etc.). That means the sources you just listed (websites, forums, books published by the company) are not acceptable. You will have to look elsewhere for reliable, secondary sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have looked elsewhere for reliable sources. There's very little available on the topic aside from that which I have provided. Perhaps the whole page should be deleted?
I too understand and agree with this policy. It would appear that a fan wiki would be a more appropriate place for such an article. I appreciate you taking the time to raise the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggroeneweg (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Jackson, Steve (1995). The INWO Book. Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. ISBN1-55634-306-X.
A promotional mess, per the usual for colleges and universities, with lots of trivial coverage of programs. I've had at it a little, and Diannaa has graciously excised small copyright violations, but multiple accounts are busy adding cruft and fluff. Any help will be great. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I thought the addition of a film studio was on the edge of being notable, I think a relatively small city like Peachtree Corners having a film studio was notable under the circumstances, specially since Peachtree Corners is not a place that usually has such a film studio. To add to notability I added to /* Economy */ the link, film studio.
Per Wikipedia standards: “A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.”
How are you an arbiter on notability and spam? Are you an administrator? How is it “spam?” If you could give a Wikipedia citation directly on point? If we can’t come to agreement, let’s arbitrate this matter. User:Quaerens-veritatem (talk) DBManley 03:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think arbitration is necessary--I've removed a number of non-notable entities you added to the article, which have read as promotional. Notability is not relative, in that it's not variable depending on whether the business locates in New York or Peachtree. One question I have is whether there's a WP:COI here, or a paid interest. As for guidelines, WP:ORG is relevant. If the subject doesn't merit a stand alone article, it ought not be added to other articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just getting reacquainted with this--back in April the discussion included long term edit warring over the inclusion of non notables at the U of GA, and multiple copyright violations [10]. I think conflict of interest was an issue then, and had something to do with the user name change. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've revdeleted another copyright violation. I don't feel comfortable blocking right now as I just reverted a content edit but will if it happens again. --NeilNtalk to me04:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've just removed an apparent copyright issue as well. This was carefully explained in April, and has been going on with that account for years. I'd be inclined to go through all lengthy edits with a comb. Not that I will. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63
I will take your explanation, and thank you for your information. Two questions:
You say that “I've removed a number of non-notable entities you added to the article, which have read as promotional.” This is the first reversion I recall on the Peachtree Corners article. Were there others I have forgotten?
@Quaerens-veritatem: I've emailed you what you wrote. No one is going to check every edit you make as you make them. It's up to you to do the work to properly write things in your own words (and please, we're not a Peachtree Corners Chamber of Commerce publication). --NeilNtalk to me05:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further, more than 450 Fortune 500 companies call Georgia home, and Georgia has over 1,700 internationally headquartered facilities representing 43 countries, employing more than 112,000 Georgians with an estimated capital investment of $23 billion. Except for the beginning re: the Fortune 500 companies, it's copied nearly verbatim. And I wonder if the opening was taken from another source. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the phrasing from the 2008 study, to compare with the Wiki entry: There are 15 Fortune 500 companies and 26 Fortune 1000 companies with headquarters in Georgia, including such names as Home Depot, UPS, Coca Cola, Delta Air Lines, AFLAC, Southern Company, and SunTrust Banks. Georgia has over 1,700 internationally headquartered facilities representing 43 countries, employing more than 112,000 Georgians with an estimated capital investment of $22.7 billion.2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, the entire paragraph before I edited read: There are 17 Fortune 500 companies and 26 Fortune 1000 companies with headquarters in Georgia, including such names as Home Depot, UPS, Coca-Cola, TSYS, Delta Air Lines, Aflac, Southern Company, Anthem Inc. (one of the largest health benefits companies), Honeywell, and SunTrust Banks. Further, more than 450 Fortune 500 companies call Georgia home, and Georgia has over 1,700 internationally headquartered facilities representing 43 countries, employing more than 112,000 Georgians with an estimated capital investment of $23 billion.2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your interest in ridding Wikipedia of copyright violations. Instead of deleting it, you could have done what I did. Rewrite and paraphrase it while maintaining the content. More than one way to skin a cat. 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the revision deletion for that particular copyvio but have not checked the remainder of the article for further violations. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sirdejoinville keeps vandalizing Francisco Mariño y Soler's page.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Mari%C3%B1o_y_Soler) This page was vandalized again by SIREDEJOINVILLE in spite of not being a Wikipedia authorized user, and numerous repeated calls for attention from @Maragm , @Bgwhite and others. As far as i know he was removed or banned from Wikipedia, and yet he manages to keep coming back, unlogged, and makes preposterous changes to the page. Sure, he started it and then abandoned it, and only after Wikipedia deleted the Spanish version of the page and theoretically, kicked him out, i started to take care of it in the English version, making sure the sources are compliant, etc, etc, but he keeps butting in and adding the shadiest tall stories about this forefather of the independence in Colombia. I have stored a copy for republication after Wikipedia makes sure this Sirdejoinville is properly and definitely banned from editing the page with falsehoods.
Thank you so much for helping with this issue and please un-publish it temporarily or ban this guy and his IPs for good. It's really annoying and frustrating!
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisnieto (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the article's history, but if there's a pattern of vandalism or block evasion, I'd suggest you take it the administrators' notice board. What will not work in your favor is deleting the entire article out of frustration, and writing in all caps, which is the internet equivalent of yelling. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's here [20]. Be sure there's merit to your accusations, and provide links to the edits that you think were vandalism. An administrator can look into persistent disruptive accounts, and suggest the proper action. And please sign your comments at talk pages. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editions of Bisnieto in the Francisco Mariño y Soler page
Good day, I wish to exposse user called Bisnieto who has made several editions in the Francisco Mariño y Soler. This page was created with historical proposse and the author has tried to conserve the page with edition rulers wikipedia has; nevertheless, Bisnieto user changes things according his own interest. It seems to be Bisnieto user is a descendant of Francisco Mariño y Soler and Ana María Pinzón Currea who were his first wife. Bisnieto interest possibly is related with a theme of nobility and his inheritance by wives order and other things; for this reason, creator of page, ask for librarian help in front to prevent the page be vandalized by Bisnieto user again and again and again.
Mr. Francisco Mariño y Soler was a real and historical person and all dates wrote there are supported by a history investigation. I shall thank the help a wikipedia librarian.
Sorry about that, man. Yes, I also notice that I ran into you the other day as well... The problem is that Huggle likes to automatically warn, so when I came here to see what was up, I noticed that it was you (and obviously it was too late)... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)22:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully editors trying to figure out what level of template to give you. LOL. Twinkle (where you actually have to do a bit of pointy and clicky before you warn) seems to have prevailed over Huggle. --NeilNtalk to me23:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more concerned that this unreferenced.... "editorial"... looks to mention and implicate individual people in this, which is a big BLP no-no. I'll strike it with the devy devy. Again, I apologize for the frustration. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)23:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On very rare occasions I revert to my registered account, usually when undoing vandalism at a protected article. The rapid reversion tools must be used with precision, otherwise they're prone to inflict unnecessary collateral damage. Reverting as an IP is a blessing, in that it usually requires extra seconds for me to assess the quality of an edit before I overturn it. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, and I completely deserve it... lol. Man, that's the biggest downside with Huggle that I'm (still) having to completely overcome... A big gripe I have with it is that it doesn't let you know if you're reverting one edit out of a series of changes made by the same user in a group. If they happened to just get done writing some other things on the article, then make an edit that's concerning - you rollback everything if you don't notice before-hand, and then people are (obviously) left sitting there confused. I can say that I'm very proficient at using Huggle and keeping those issues in check, but they still happen occasionally, and it's super frustrating (for both me, and the person on the other end)... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)23:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth '99, Oshwah is typically one of the better vandal fighters when it comes to assuming good faith with IPs. I'll call him out on it when he templates one of the (many) good faith IP talk pages I have on my watchlist, but I've never seen him get defensive over it, and considering how many edits he does with Huggle, from what I can tell he has a significantly lower bad-revert rate than most of the people who report good IPs to AIV. It doesn't make it better that you got templated, but I think it speaks to his character that he is so open to criticism on this. Anyway, hope your holiday season is going well TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. One thing I'm not doing tonight is getting angry or tearing anybody a new one. Oshwah has been tremendously helpful, and this has been my experience with nearly all administrators. The site depends on this, and I appreciate it. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback about this. This, if anything, shows that I need to take time and figure out what I need to do in order to address the specific situations that are allowing me to mess up reverting - especially when I bump into you twice over just a few days over making the wrong revert call. That's just not cool on my part at all, and I can't allow myself to be in a position that causes things like this to happen. This situation should be easy; I actually modified my queue filter to no longer exclude edits that were reverts the other day (heh, now I understand why it's off by default now...) - so I'm still learning, too. But this issue isn't going to be resolved by flipping a setting back... It's on me to make sure that I'm reverting the right person. In this situation, I saw that someone was changing the nickname of a BLP to something very different than what was on the previous edit (and I knew that this page had been hit today earlier). I knew that vandalism had occurred; what I obviously didn't know was that the change you made was fixing it, not causing it.
I really appreciate that you see the position I'm in, that I've spent many years in RC patrolling and what-not, and that I (usually) get it right. It's situations like this where the margin of what to pay attention to are very thin, but in the events that you don't, well... this happens. Is it rare? Yeah, usually... (which is good). But it's obviously a margin or error that I can't be okay with or see as an acceptable low level of potential error anymore... It obviously puts me in a bad position that I'm expected not to be in, and it frustrates those (including myself) when I do. Sigh... it's unfortunately the curse that comes with being where I am and going exactly what I'm doing... which I've allowed myself to create... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)23:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a difference using a site like geni for an entire article or using it for birth and death dates to support the the other sources and the death date of Raphael Recanati is also in his nyt obitFlamingoflorida (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding sources cleaning up grammar I am not touching the meat of the articles ie the business and philanthropy
If we must have articles against are desirable for privacy then they should be as accurate as possible and fair and neutral I have added no more new information without a sourceFlamingoflorida (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There's no prohibition on COI-editors editing articles directly. It's strongly discouraged, and editors ignoring the guideline will get jumped on quickly if they start disrupting articles, but not prohibited. Flamingoflorida, repeating what others have told you, your best bet is to use Template:Request edit on talk pages when you want to make a change to an article. --NeilNtalk to me23:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, I appreciate the above explanation. Despite the fact that the editor is generally trying to be constructive, there's a competency issue when it comes to blurring the relationship between reliable sources and original research. My take is that an ANI will be inevitable. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're relying on a photo of Julian Schnabel and Rula Jebreal together to ascertain the date they broke up, for 'personal' sections of Wikipedia bios. Neil, Drmies, apologies for gnawing at this, but it's gossipy and based on poor sourcing and speculation. As I've said, the family articles are not the only problem. I hate to go to ANI so soon after the closing of the COI report, but there's a persistent problem here with BLPs. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources can be used to conclusively state that a breakup occurred in June. A published WP:RELIABLE source is necessary to establish that, not a photo of two people together on May 31, and not a gossip column with an anonymous source, wherein the phrasing may well refer to the timing of the Bienniale and not the breakup. I'm not writing this for your benefit--you're apparently unwilling or unable to grasp basic WP:BLP policies, and move from article to article with some sloppiness and a lot of certainty that you're correct. But I am establishing a virtual paper trail for others. To confuse getting it right--in the absence of definitive reference, it's safe to leave the date at the year and not the month--with nitpicking is to say it's ok to be persistently careless in what we publish about people's private lives. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It ain't me; I'm trying to account for an encyclopedia's responsibility. The source is flimsy, and the article was published in August of that year. All of this adds up to weak referencing, and I've seen much more solid stuff removed from articles for being banal gossip. The safest path is to leave the end date at the year. I tried to go that route, and have been reverted and compelled to enter an elaborate discussion. It's easier to open another gardam thread at a noticeboard. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's important for me to reiterate: I'd strongly suggest you not edit biographies until you've had more experience. Difficulty distinguishing between a date of publication and the date of a wedding is a warning sign here. Watch how knowledgeable editors work, and slow way down. Too many mistakes. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through all your responses here, you have been incredibly patient with the editor so this is just a thank you for your work. I see that I am just repeating things you have already said and thus unlikely to get a different result. Hope you got some rest and enjoy the holidays (assuming you are in fact in a country where this is a holiday time of year!) Melcous (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry that I am bothering you it is not my intention. For you this is distant for me it is personal I knew these people the 1983 Israeli bank crisis and subsequent trail caused Raphael recanati liver failure and then a liver transplant it gave him 5 more years but wasn’t enough to save him from a weakened heart from all that surgery and medication please understand that I do want to learn and am trying Flamingoflorida (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the bill can't be copyrighted because it's an Edict of Government, which are exempt from US copyright law. However, both sections should be rewritten. And I'll note, for the record, that removing a citation is definitely not fixing a copyright violation. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really the only thing I'd like to help with is in letting the media in Greenville know that Dr. Murphy was blocked for making persistent promotional edits to his Wikipedia biography, and has otherwise relied on friendly surrogates to do the same. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One big unsourced promotional brochure for the center's programs. I'm always hesitant to do the broad deletions, since there's a tendency to interpret them as IP vandalism. If anyone wants to do some cleaning up feel free. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have told the story in the past, but it's been a while. I did a lot of article creation and construction, especially in one area, and I stopped writing for Wikipedia after my articles began to enjoy consistent publication elsewhere, and for pay. Once I was given latitude to write editorially--and the venues that use my work tend to grant an unusual degree of freedom--the restrictions of working here without compensation seemed a lot less attractive. Still, to kill spare time I continued to edit here but turned increasingly to reverting vandalism, citing promotional agendas, undoing defamatory rants and removing copyright infractions. In other words, work that could be done without serious research, but had a place in defending the encyclopedia's integrity. This reorientation seemed to me to be rather workaday compared to my previous interest, and I chose to pursue this direction as an IP, in part so that fellow registered editors from my past wouldn't recognize me (I didn't want to get pulled back into the scholarship) and in part, perhaps less convincingly, out of concern that my registered account would somehow be connected with my Wikipedia biography, which I try, with great success, to stay away from. I also found that for some years, IP vandals tended to be surprised by an IP who was trying to shut them down--targeting me was less satisfying than harassing a registered account. And then, every time a registered editor erroneously warned me or asked me why I didn't just register, my resolve to continue as an IP was newly strengthened--just old-school contrariness, and a determination to cede rollback privileges and work a bit more slowly, from the trenches. It's even possible that my move away from the registered account paralleled a disenchantment with academia, where I'd worked for many years. Some people react to professional crises by playing the misanthropic card, imposing their egos disruptively and destructively. For me, the idea of becoming a constructive annoyance, under the radar, had appeal. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you know what? Having you edit as an IP is a great thing insofar as it might make registered editors hesitate a fraction of a second longer before they blindly revert "just an IP's" edit. I very occasionally edit as an IP (staying far away from the articles I edit as a registered account) just to experience the interface and interaction with other editors and it hasn't always been pleasant. --NeilNtalk to me03:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the relevent notablity guideline, see WP:NMOTORSPORT; and that being the case, I would say not, as the races he is listed as taking part in seem to be pro-am, if that, and even then doesn't seem to have won any awards from his endeavours. Having said that, for transparency, I know nothing about motor racing generally or those leagues in particular. >SerialNumber54129...speculates16:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That coincides with my reading, as well as my knowledge of the sport. The little coverage I found is in local papers covering hometown races. His website doesn't appear to exist, and the accomplishments section is unsourced. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if your "absurd rodeo" refers to life in general, or the nightmare we Americans (and, indeed, the whole world) have been subjected to for the last year. As I said on my talk page (two months into the nightmare), I've only been able to survive the latter because of Samantha Bee and Stephen Colbert. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM03:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I married a cat lady 36 years ago and we have had nine of them in our homes over the years. About five years ago, we were asked to take care of a delightful Boston Terrier for a couple of months, and he is still here. So it goes. Drmies, who follows me on Facebook, knows that yesterday was my wife's 65th birthday. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Happy Birthday from me, as well. I've been with my gal (gal? really?) for 23 years, and we've cycled through a few cats and a lot of dogs, some of which belong to her daughters. I'm crazy about the current crop, especially two rescues from the south. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been great to get to know you and talk to you since I (umm... let's just say, "ran into you" - twice... in two days... lol), and I highly respect your unique style and editing from an IP instead of with an account. I don't know your name or anything, but recently I've been referring to you as "Bob2" (well, "Bob") in my mind - because your IP in the second-most-right block group is B0B2, and that's how I recognize you around the wiki from all the other IPv6 addresses. So hi, Bob! Thanks for being here for the project and for your professional temperament and responses to conflict, and for you knowledge and dedication here. I award you this special barnstar. It's chocolate-filled, so enjoy ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)01:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should. We have enough trouble keeping the place clean from political trolls without registered editors doing it for them! Out of ignorance rather than intent, I grant, but even so, it demonstrates what can happen when a little less attention than is optimum is paid. Cheers for the note, >SerialNumber54129...speculates14:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another one to watch. Two related COI accounts, each professing to either be the subject or editing on his behalf, would like to remove sourced content. I've requested page protection and tagged the article for COI. More eyes will be helpful. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am working with the subject of the article to ensure that it represents what the full range of reliable sources say about him. He has calmed down and is providing me links to high quality reliable sources to use in the biography. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher)@Cullen328: It looks much better, excellent work. I'd reduce the size of the photo: a) if the infobox is the same length as the article, it makes the article look shorter than it is, and b) it makes his hooter look bigger than he would like or we need. But it's certainly cleaned the Augean stable here- this time... >SerialNumber54129...speculates09:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, thank you very much for asking. And thank you especially for corresponding with Mr. Scofield and assisting with the article. I have a few thoughts, for what they're worth. The 1999 interview offers a lot, including a brief overview of his youth, which is thus far absent from the bio, and a self-description of his longhand writing process--the latter may well be dated, but it's interesting and can be included with the proviso that it was true to his working process at that time. I'd also be wary of having the reception section become WP:UNDUE; can you imagine if a section of equal length was devoted to harsh criticism, and the protest that would engender from the subject? Anyway, those are quick takes. It's entirely possible that the interview can be mined for more information, and that there's much more in terms of videos and written content online that can further flesh out the bio. As you're well aware, in all of this there's the fine line of welcoming a subject's offering of valuable material versus allowing their thumb to rest on the scale. And per comment by Serial Number 54129, I like the previous color image better than the black and white headshot, but what are you gonna do? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I intend to add more biographical detail. As far as the critical reception section goes, I understand the point about negative criticism but so far, I have not found any. Regarding the photo, I considered it a small concession to make given that he was very angry and indignant at first as were many of his Facebook friends. I engaged with him on Facebook Messenger, explained the relevant policies clearly, and he quickly calmed down and started providing a variety of links that were useful in expanding the article. He took down his Facebook complaint, and ended up being gracious and grateful. Plus, he is clearly a notable poet, I learned a lot about the Metis culture of Canada, and the encyclopedia is better off. I think that the concession about the photo was a small thing overall. Cullen328Let's discuss it20:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, Cullen328. I did notice that the FB complaint came down yesterday. To be clear, I'm not advocating that we dig up negative reception, just that the amount of positive critique not constitute a half or third of article space. Then it gets to looking like a publisher's blurb-fest. As for the photo, that's of little consequence, but between you and me, the calculated head shot tends to look studio-produced, as opposed to the candid shot. But personal vanity is not something easily relinquished. The most important stuff is the first mentioned: the addition of biographical detail. I think once that gets a fuller treatment the proportion of positive reception may fall into place. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the current photo is a "work for hire" done by a professional photographer and Scofield obtained the copyright so that he can use it as needed as a writer. I will continue to expand the biographical content. I was working quickly yesterday to try to calm the troubled waters. Cullen328Let's discuss it21:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate that, and in years past I've attempted the same thing, once going so far as to engage Pete Hamill privately, when he and his daughter were turning the Wiki bio into a personal memoir. In the end, though, I don't much care about the notable's ego. That terribly intelligent folk are eager to misconstrue an encyclopedia article as their private territory amazes me. When several editors collaborated to write my bio here, I supplied published content and got out of the way, never seeking to manage the thing. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JJMC89 and Melcous for starting on this. If and when you have an interest, could you look at Gregory Scofield? I've tried, but there are several sock or meat puppets that have taken it over on behalf of the subject. The last I looked they'd removed sourced content and were adding Facebook links as a source. Invoking right to privacy. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries 99, had a go on the Jones bio but I'm a bit like you, not sure where to start! Notable, sure, but an awful lot of name-dropping. I wonder whether it might be worth requesting the Scofield one be semi-protected for a while? Melcous (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid that copying wasn't obvious. Stumbled upon the article via breadcrumbs left by one editor, then noticed at least two more working in close WP:SPA proximity. My take is that it'll need to be disassembled piecemeal, there's so much that's unsourced and unencyclopedic. Thank you for checking. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't see it any more because I've already done the rev-del, but some of the content was identical to the artist blurb here. An even better match than the url you supplied. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, just as I want to send my answer, you deleted the section. Sorry for my revert. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mass of COI article creations with the standard issues
Serial Number 54129, Drmies, NeilN and any other friends eavesdropping, some advice will be appreciated re Susan Spaid (talk·contribs). I've at least temporarily slowed her down at Lynn Zelevansky and Carole Ann Klonarides, both of whom appear to be colleagues or friends. Both articles could use further attention, but the larger problem is that nearly every article she's created is similarly compromised by promotional and unsourced content, and the bios especially are well-written resumes (I've also done some pruning to Sue Spaid, which appears to have been written by friends and associates of the subject). I'll go through a few of them and do some easy/superficial cleaning; see, for instance, Baskerville + Watson, Sigrid Burton, Adelle Lutz, Julia Couzens, Robin Hill (American artist), The Imaginary 20th Century, Norman M. Klein and most problematic because of its scope, I suspect, Guerilla Girls. Some are better than others (I haven't listed all the articles she's written), but most or all evidence a tone of advocacy, per the revisions I've made to the Zelevansky and Klonarides articles. Besides requesting assistance, it's prudent for me to ask whether all this rises to the level of a noticeboard report. Surely there's a COI issue, to which Ms. Spaid has not responded, and I wouldn't be surprised if these have been paid edits. Thoughts appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a WP:TPS, I've had a look at some and done some pruning, copyediting, and tagging. Definitely could use some more eyes on them. I note that the editor has made only a single edit to one talk page in all their time here, which isn't a great sign. It would be great if you could get a response and a conversation started without having to make a report. Let me know if you think it would be helpful to have another voice leave a talk message for her? Cheers, Melcous (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, though I’ve continued to correspond at Ms. Spaid’s talk page, I’m not necessarily advocating for an indefinite block. But I do think there’s a resistance to accepting guidelines. Cheers from 2601, or 99, or whatever. 107.77.223.229 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at how the conversation is progressing every now and then. You and Melcous have done an excellent job advising the editor but I'm not sure we're at the point of unblocking yet. --NeilNtalk to me15:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Drmies, NeilN and TonyBallioni, I'd appreciate input from any of you re: a discussion I joined here [38]. I'm surprised by a series of comments seeking to question the character of editors with whom Walter Görlitz disagrees; [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]. These seem to be off-topic distractions and attempts to impugn the motives of several contributors; more bluntly, it's crap, with an attempt to draw me out by identifying place of residence. For the moment I prefer not to answer there, but would like to know if this is standard procedure for that editor, and if it's sufficient to take to ANI. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are with NeilN on this being a long day. Normally I would be willing to help, but a bit tired personally. Looks like the Doc is up. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Diannaa, after removing some promotional content, I found that at least some was copied from [44]. The SeaWorld articles tend to be promotional messes, and there's a group of similar accounts responsible for much of the problem, so a WP:MULTIPLE check may be in order. For the moment, my specific request is to check for further copyright violations and rev/delete where appropriate. As always, thank you for any light you can shed. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revision deletion done. I found no other direct copying, though it's obvious most of the article was written by marketing people. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. Yeah, the last time it got unprotected some awful person with nothing better to do starting saying horrible things about my family. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. My name is Joshua Ferguson. I am a student of Chick Vennera. I am sitting here with Chick and we were updating his page. You sent me a message that you deleted all my updates. We did a lot of work on that. Is there a back up? Do we need to send you a video mail to prove we are who we say we are? Any information back would be great.
Hi, Therealjferguson. My advice--and I think it's fair to say you'd receive very similar feedback from any long time editor here--is not to do anything until you've read Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV. There's nothing about this [45] or this [46] that's remotely acceptable for an encyclopedia entry, which has different standards than a personal memoir or blog. No content ought to be added to that, or any article, unless it's properly sourced and neutral in tone. Assuming both you and Mr. Vennera read and understand that, conflict of interest will still probably be an issue. So, armed with that knowledge, I'd suggest that you not edit the article. Rather, you are welcome to use the article's talk page to suggest changes, with the understanding that we can not publish statements or anecdotes unless they've already been published elsewhere by an objective source. Thanks for your note, and best wishes, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert this edit [48] with only the edit notation of "nope" [49]? Seems to me that you are not helping me understand your reasoning - or your interest level in dialoging, if you make such minimalist edit notes. Xerton (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, emphatically. And you, a new account who's taking a shine to controversial subjects, are on the verge of edit warring. But to elaborate, the lede is not the place for opinions by Dershowitz or any other legal experts. There's a 'reaction' section, which may be appropriate, if the content can be added in a neutral manner. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not new - look at my talk page; I've been IP only for 8 years. I added an account to gain traction in the credibility dept. Xerton (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, we appeared to have gotten off on a rough start here, but you apparently seem to be doing a great job. This is me extending my hand of friendship, amazing work with those vandals. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, NeilN. I'm not terribly interested in it, but did want to stanch the defamatory flow, which looked like a reaction to previous promotional content. Under the circumstances, it looks like you did well to restore a compromise version. I haven't checked it myself, but someone made reference to an old version being copied from elsewhere, so there may be some rev/deletion in its future. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, I have commented against the indefinite block of Americanfootballupdater, as I think that he was acting in good faith. And, as you were the one who took his case to AN/I, I thought this might be of interest to you. If you have any problems, do let me know.
Thank you, SshibumXZ. You may be correct about the editor, but even if he agrees to avoid subjects that constitute WP:COI, his partially deleted explanations for unblocking aren't very encouraging. I'm not convinced he understands yet why the assistant coaches at his school would not meet notability guidelines; that using articles on other coaches as examples is not a valid point of comparison (especially since some of them have notability issues, too); or that persistent re-creation of the articles was itself disruptive, and still may think that aside from copyright violations, what he did was okay. I can and may add these observations to your comments. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented there, SshibumXZ. Whether or not the block is lifted, I don't think the editor has displayed competence to be writing biographies about anyone, despite claiming to understand notability terms, and is still adhering to the belief that assistant coaches are notable, whether or not they meet our guidelines. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about them not understanding Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. But, I still do think that an extended t-ban would be better than an indefinite block. That’s not for us to decide, though. Let’s see what decision does the reviewing admin takes. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Affluent
FYI, it seems like it's something of a disease, particularly around Sydney:
Wow. Thank you for noticing these, Pdfpdf. But I confess I can not see how to justify restoring what's essentially a realtor's visual listing of non notable residential structures [51], or why non notable establishments and restaurants need to be mentioned [52]. And there are no sources. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And much havoc to articles while the parent IP was locked down. See South West England for recent history of extensive unsourced content. If it's established that these are the same editor, there may be a massive thread of unsourced crap added to multiple articles during the block. Aside from the promotional bent being hatched, that was the 82.25's m.o. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all - You're always welcome to ping me and ask if you're not completely sure :-). I'm mobile at the moment but I'll take a look as soon as I'm back on my workstation. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 99. Sorry for being late to the ping. I don't have time to go through the edits now, but if they're repeating the previous behavior, then renewing the block is likely justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To a lot of folks, a Wiki bio takes on existential significance, hence the embarrassing behavior to maintain one. Via Google, I found better coverage of his marriage and arrests by law enforcement than for his career. If his editing privilege is restored, Drmies and NeilN, I hope he'll be banned from writing about himself. Doesn't look like he's interested in anything else. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some eyes on this appreciated. I removed copyright violation prose that was essentially a resume for the current chancellor; I also removed some content that revved up the events of a no confidence vote during his tenure, probably placed by a COI account. Pending an actual outcome, I'm wondering how much of this is passing news, how much is a WP:BLP issue, and how much merits inclusion here. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be. You've done exactly what you should have, which was reflect on the behavior and why you believe that it happened, and what should be done to prevent it in the future. Consider yourself "unblocked", Bob. We all make mistakes - don't put yourself in the doghouse if you don't need be there ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)04:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, Sagaciousphil. I wondered if this is the rapper/dog vandal, but can’t remember if he’s used Malaysian IPs before. If you and other talk page watchers can track those articles today, terrific. I’m traveling and working in the city. Thanks from 99 on the road, 107.77.223.109 (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he ever used anything outside of the States; thankfully, he seems to have pretty much wandered away from the dog articles - but we probably shouldn't speak too soon. SagaciousPhil - Chat16:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, NeilN and other talk page stalkers, can you have a look at this? It's a COI article promoting the researcher's publications. There may be copyright violation issues and notability concerns--without objective sources, I don't think this merits an article here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know. The usernames and all, the likelihood that the one is the other seems pretty big. As for what to do with that article--it's always nice to find a formal reason to do away with it. But we could just PROD it. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave that to your other bodyguard, Neil. It's late and I'm getting sleepy, too sleepy for difficult things. Thanks, and see you later, Drmies (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the bot who is deleting {{Persondata}}. I noticed your edit on Albert Sacco in which you added {{Persondata}}. This template is deprecated and deleted. Please stop adding {{Persondata}}. In case you want to support the Persondata project you can help with the migration of the dataset to Wikidata at KasparBot's tool. See Wikipedia:Persondata or contact my operator T.seppelt in case you have any questions.
Since the discussion you tagged me on looks like a whole lot of mess that I'm marginally (at most) involved in, I figured it would be easier to respond to you in here. I generally don't mess with HS pages themselves, unless I happen to see vandalism or a typo in a rather obvious spot (ie: Parke Heritage HS being under the article Park Heritage HS). Im not even sure if I've ever made an edit on my own high school's page ever, if I have it's been a long time ago. I mainly work in the conference sections, particularly conference changes and disbanded conferences. At one point, I actually had quite a large reference list before Newspaper Archive and Newspapers.com started majorly clamping down on their paywalls, coupled with the hard drive said files were on dying. That's why some of these conferences, particularly county conferences, don't have references.
Of course, I imagine how I got involved with that goat rodeo of a discussion was the flurry of additions the other week, particularly in the EIAC, ORVC, and Hoosier Hills Conference championship pages. 1) I was making those changes on a cell phone, so instead of doing everything at once, I could only do it with sporadic bits and pieces at a time. If I had to go back to my wordpad document, when I switched back to my browser, all of my changes were gone, which is why there were so many edits. 2) I opened a trial account at Newspapers.com, so I pretty much had to do a year by year search to see what info was online out there as far as conference championships info for those conferences. The downside to doing that is that, if you wanted everything referenced, you'd end up with possibly 100 references for just that section, on what is essentially a minor page in the Wiki scope.
I'm all for having source material to back things up, but there also needs to be some logic behind that rule as well. Most conferences in Indiana do a woeful job of keeping track of records, let alone putting them online, so having a one-stop shop of info isn't possible. That, of course doesn't mean a conference that we have a newspaper article showing was founded in the 50's hasn't had champions since then, it's just a pain to find out who they were. This is where the newspaper sites help (as long as you're willing to pay up), because the alternative would be to go around the whole state looking at days of microfilm, and trusting that the editor has everything right.
Again, I understand your concern, but considering a vendetta thread I have nothing to do with was a good spot to discuss the matter, I figured here was a better place, though I apologize for the novel. Mtndrums (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bob! I just wanted to check in regarding the ANI report you created regarding Ezwider and their edits in concern - are there still ongoing problems that need to be looked at? They haven't edited since yesterday, but I wanted to ask in case I need to look into this a bit further than I have. Let me know or ping me on the ANI - either is fine. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Oshwah. Firstly, thank you for your time and consideration, which I appreciate. Secondly, I’m out of the loop now because not only did the winter storm knock me offline, it knocked me out of the house—we lost all power, including water, heat, Internet and phone service, and bivouacked last night with our three dogs in a motel room. To your question, nothing new has arisen lately, though I think the account got a free pass on a history of since redacted promotional posts. Now the issues appear to be original research and understanding of reliable sources, guidelines that are apparently more readily understandable in academia than journalism. I’m not saying that to be snide, but as someone with a passing acquaintance with both professions, and have several times encountered professional and even famous journalists who were all but useless as encyclopedia contributors. It would be a good idea to watch Ezwider, for in addition to the previous, COI appears very likely; I don’t want to make it a mission to follow them alone. Again, thanks and cheers, Bob. 2601:188:180:11F0:D403:A83A:A395:5EA5 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord, man! I'm sorry to hear about the weather and your situation. I'm happy to hear that you're safe though - that's what's truly important (even though it was probably very aggravating for you to have to go through). No, don't be silly... I don't get any sense of "snide" from your input at all. If the user has had a history of repeatedly making disruptive or unsourced edits, it's completely fair to mention that you think that they've done so beyond that of what most accounts like this would typically get away with before being blocked. I just can't use that input or that "fact" to justify just blocking them now if things have since stopped... you know what I mean ;-). I'll go ahead and keep the ANI discussion open and consider giving them a warning regarding their edits and educating them on what to do if they have questions. This might be all that's needed. Anyways... you clearly have much more important and urgent matters to take care of, so I'll try and see what I can dig up and determine what should be done from there. I wish you well, and that you continue to be safe and that everything in your off-wiki life is resolved. Thanks for the response; I'll do what I can :-). Best - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)18:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m delighted that the power is back and we’re settled in at home. The dogs seem happy about it, too. Diannaa has been helpful thus far in establishing a correspondence with the account. At the moment there doesn’t appear to be a need to stir things further. Thank you very much, 2601:188:180:11F0:D403:A83A:A395:5EA5 (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and unblocked. I went through the diffs, and was confused as well (I didn't realize it was you 99 until I clicked on the talk page). I think Kudpung probably thought you were the vandal IP (as I did before I took a second look). I'll leave a note on his talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for that error. It was difficult to entangle and it looked as if the IP was on a spree that needed to be stopped quickly. BTW, that was the first time I ever had a block overturned. Thanks go to TonyBallioni for catching my mistake. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion and your help. Also sorry but I haven't an external relationship with Sara Osuna, professor and scientific at UNED University and coordinator of an European Project ECO "(ECO) “Elearning, Communication and Open-data: Mobile, Massive and Ubiquitous Learning”.
The humorous thing is, I've been in that little backwater numerous times. The lede picture is the grain elevator, because that is virtually all that is there. The ISP loves the place though. Speed limit suddenly drops from 55 to 25 for a quarter mile. They write a ton of tickets there. John from Idegon (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me if it gets added again. I don't think it will, given the autoconfirmed editor has now been asked for an explanation by two admins. --NeilNtalk to me08:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of urgent matters relating to articles associated with WP:WPSCH, I generally only edit US topics. I think I'll leave this in the capable hands of you and Neil. John from Idegon (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, thank you. I left it alone because even without having done a thorough reading, it appeared that the deleting accounts had a point. But I also was wary of their behavior. John from Idegon, perhaps you'll consider not being limited by national borders. Then there'd be no time left to sleep. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, Diannaa and Drmies, PeppermintSA (talk·contribs) has created a lot of articles lately, at least some of which show a promotional slant. I'm also concerned that there may be copyright issues...though it's not always easy to discern given the language difference with most sources. Please take a look at my reversions and warnings, and see what you think about their edit history. Much thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those festivals--no. The photo festival, maybe, but the others are so local and that beer festival... Well, we have tons of those articles which have a limited appeal and a limited importance. We typically keep them, but I usually have a problem with those articles that basically list the programs for every year. And sometimes I put my money where my mouth is. Really, I'd suggest cutting those dates and names. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do the edit on the Festival 84 article that you warned me about. You can check my contributions and see that I only added a piece on the Jahorina mountain which I copied from the Jahorina mountain wikipedia page. The part that you deleted was not written by me, which can easily be checked.
As for the Sarajevo Open University page. I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not a part of the institution, I have never taken part in its work, nor do I personally know any of the people involved. Still, I tried to fix it up and make it appear more neutral, because after reading through it I could see why you might have found it to be overly promotional. PeppermintSA (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copywrite
Again, you can go through my contributions and see that I have been active on Wikipedia for more than 4 years and that I have written at least 50 articles mostly on Bosnian athletes. All of my work is fully referenced, more so than the average wikipedia article which can again be checked. I have never written a single sentance which was copy pasted from another website and doesn't meet the strict copywrite guidelines. PeppermintSA (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Can you check if the Open University of Sarajevo article is better now? I took out all the references to grandiosity. Cheers. PeppermintSA (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to fix up the Open University article some more. As for the Sarajevo Beer Fest page - each year's edition is sourced by official festival statements or reviews from leading daily newspapers that contain the information found in the notes section. I just didn't individually source every segment of each year's edition, opting to use one source for each edition seeing all the sources reference all the information found in each edition's segment (year, venue, dates, headliners, notes). In other words I felt that one source per edition was enough because said source holds all the information stated in each column. For example: The source for the 2012 edition is a statement from the festival's official website and it states that the festival was held in the 'Metalac' open-air theatre, names all of the headliners and dates and calls the edition a pilot. Quote: 'Prvi Sarajevo Beer Festival' - translation: First-Pilot Sarajevo Beer Festival. The 2017 edition source is a review from the Oslobođenje daily newspaper which states the festival included a hip hop program for the first time, (quote): '...bit će tu dobrog starog rocka, ali i reegae-rapa programa' - translation: ...the regular rock program, there will also be a reggae and hip hip program'. Etc. When writing articles on festivals and entertainment the most encyclopedic sources are reviews from well-established publications and official websites. As I said earlier, I source apsolutely everything I write which can be confirmed by the fact that not a single article I have ever written was negatively reviewed because of lack of sources. PeppermintSA (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Open University page. Every sentance in the article is now purely fact-based and can be corroborated by its source. Sentances such as '...concidered one of the largest;most well known;eminent...' have been taken out or replaced with purely fact-based information such as the University's stance on the 2014 Bosnia and Herzegovina social riots. Descriptions of individuals that contain terms such as 'renowned', 'acclaimed' or 'well-known' have been taken out. It now fully complies with wikipedia policy. PeppermintSA (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a paid contributer
No, I am not a paid contributer. I just enjoy writing up articles on wikipedia and have been stuck in the house for the past few weeks with a leg injury so I have a lot of free time. PeppermintSA (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so. But a series of articles you're creating about festivals features a lot of poorly sourced content--that is to say, sourced primarily to the subjects--promotional tone and dubious notability. So while assuming good faith, there's a problem here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell for sure; we will have to take it to SPI. I am not sure if IPs are permitted to file SPI reports, since it involves creating a page; please let me know if you need me to do this. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 how come you took away the Warren Consolidated Schools School Board? I went to this District.96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, all. First, notability is irrelevant for content. I'm assuming what we are talking about is "encyclopedic". Verification and consensus are what matter there. A reasonable assumption is that guidelines reflect consensus. Verification is easy. Now, the school article guidelines do a very poor job of reflecting what a school district article should look like. Since school districts are local quasi-governmental units, I've always applied the wisdom from WP:USCITY to them. Hence, elected officials are encyclopedic (the board) and pretty much, only the superintendent besides that. My 2¢. John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's a consensus that school board members rate encyclopedic mention, I'll stand down. I thought that the general principle was that we don't list non notable persons in articles--does this mean that board members of major universities and corporations merit inclusion? If so, I've been operating under an incorrect interpretation. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A COI and promotional bloat. Serial Number 54129 or anyone who feels like taking a shot at this, good luck. It looks as if most all of this vanity piece can be cut for lack of sources, but if I do it there will more likely be edit warring or at least some warnings for mass deletion of content. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bob! I responded to the ANI discussion that you started. Since I can't ping your IP directly, I figured I'd just let you know by leaving you a message here. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)05:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's definitely silly indeed, and yes - MHS1976 is definitely what I'd argue as "the main offender", but the other users added fuel to the fire by keeping it going as well. I figured that I'd protect the page and just warn everyone involved with the same notice instead of choosing who to block and who not to block... else, one user will see that I didn't block the other and become angry and ... you know how all of that goes :-). Let me know if things change or if I can assist with anything else. Good to run into you again; hope things are going well for you. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May I enquire why you are deleting all of the hard work and energy that has gone into creating a wiki page for UK charity, Prisoners' Advise Service? Geof Jarvis (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, he got picked #8 or so? I saw it on Facebook--Roll Tide. Hey, I mentioned you in a presentation I gave about Wikipedia at a conference on Educational Technology. I may have mentioned "lobster roll". Drmies (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi talk page stalkers, a COI account has maintained his autobiography here, and contributed lots of original research to multiple articles. The first issue is the bio, and whether it meets notability guidelines. The second is--even if we accept Mr. Herrick's knowledge of the subjects--how much leeway is given for these contributions, as at Estevanico, and whether we accept the self-citing and addition of his books as sources to these articles. I've received no response at BLP [58], and think this could as easily go to ANI or COI. Would appreciate thoughts, review of edit history, and perhaps an AfD nomination. We've got thunderstorms today, so of course the power flickers and I'm reincarnated as a new IP. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:A6:9302:C063:B2A1 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which way to go with this--COI, BLP or page protection. Further eyes on this bio will be appreciated. I've done a lot, but it still needs work, and multiple accounts are devoted to maintaining this as a puff piece. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your inquiry. I'm going to try and have Fenlandier complete the TWA new user tutorial. If this user is having a rough start and possible COI issues maybe, this will be a good place for him to start and we'll easily figure out from how this user does with the tutorial (or even if he completes it) what we should do next... Fingers crossed :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Melcous has made a good start. Mr. Eichler's edits probably need to be assessed for promotional bias to articles on his clients. Lots of COI possibility. I'm away for a few days. May check in from the road. Cheers,
Here's some fun. I've tagged this and begun paring some of the promotional fluff. For them what's interested, this needs further attention to promotional content, and distinction between which unsourced content goes and which, if any, remains. Also, since this has been so profusely edited for years by COI accounts, it's probably a good idea to check for copyright violations. Thanks and good luck. I'm heading out of town again this week. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Needs page protection again. An SPI wouldn’t hurt, either. I’m on the road, and can’t easily type in a page protection request using my IPhone. Thanks to NeilN, Drmies or Oshwah. By the way, the article sucks. Once the COI accounts are shelved, someone could clean that up. Thanks, 2601, or 99, or 38.98.231.46 (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some editing - adding in facts from references and removing some more unsourced claims. (Plenty more to go) If these get reverted again I will apply for page protection, unless someone else does first. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi "Bob" and other talk page stalkers, if you get a chance to have a look at this page I'd appreciate it - the page creator is exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour and keeps reverting to poorly sourced and promotional type content. I might need to step away so as to not get overly frustrated with them, so would appreciated some more eyes. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually just put a semi-protection on it as well as I fear they may come back. If you want me to lift it, let me know, but it would mean as an IP you wouldn't be able to edit it. Canterbury Tailtalk00:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. After a day out, I’m just catching up with this now. Since I’m traveling with a phone, I’m useless for doing any substantial rewriting, but can look at the article after I return home tomorrow night. Great restraint not to have slapped a big COI template on top of that; I would have done that straightaway. 38.98.231.45 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article and its duplicate, each rife with years' worth of promotional content, and apparently a bit of copyright violation. Perhaps someone could redirect one of the articles, and an admin can check and rev/delete the copied content. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if I go into these and remove the lists of non notable children who received these honors, it will prompt an edit war with COI accounts and may be perceived as vandalism. More eyes on these would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could some wise admin please rev/delete the spammy copyright violations again, and lock the article? It never fails to surprise me that representatives of universities, churches, schools, etc, have no qualms in adding promotional and copyright violation text. Well, at this point it really doesn't surprise me anymore.
Melcous, NeilNDrmies, I'd appreciate more eyes on this, with the possibility of page protection should the promotional editing continue. It's a COI or autobiography issue that's bled into Minority Business Development Agency as well. I've reported this to the BLP noticeboard, but it's not exciting enough to have received any play there. Still, there's been a decent edit war for spin control, and the bio could use some attention. One question: is notability satisfied here? Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about inherent notability for gov't positions, but National Deputy Director or whatever sounds fancy enough. That article, yeah, it's like so many of them, isn't it. BTW I warned another editor for BLP violations and scrubbed the talk page history. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. As an IP user, can you see my log? My recent contributions may be of some interest to you. Thanks again for keeping the joint clean. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That article was stuffed with press releases from the agency—the four refs on one event turned out to all be the same press release, and I didn't have the heart to examine the other paragraphs on his activities within the agency, but they are all about him doing his job. I found one additional similar ref to the Wapo one on his resignation—again, mentioned briefly along with three others. I have serious doubts about his notability but am not deletionist enough to AfD it. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A vanity project, even to the sentence Garcia brought winners of the Minority Enterprise Development Week Awards to be recognized by President Trump in the Oval Office. I think it's a good candidate for AfD, even if neither of us bring it there, Yngvadottir. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that a draft article on a former head of the MBDA is languishing at AfC because of doubts about notability based on the position. @Drmies: You're less of an inclusionist than I am, would you take another look? If defamatory material has been being posted to the talk page (I obviously can't see it), then nominating for deletion might be the kindest thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bob! You beat me to reverting that article further back and did so right before I applied that page protection. Yay for teamwork! Thanks for doing all that you do and please know that it's appreciated and that it doesn't go unnoticed. Keep up the good work, and I wish you happy editing and safe patrolling ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Drmies. I often defer to others when it comes to pulling the trigger on such broad reversions. It's partly because someone is apt to misinterpret mass removal of content as vandalism, coming from an IP. It's also because that even when something doesn't smell right to me, I'm often uncertain how far to go in deletion, and prefer not to overdo it. As a result, I'm conservative in rolling back inappropriate content. All of which is to say that I'd burden you with another barnstar, but what good is it if you can't trade it for something tangible anyway? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Ha, I ask for a second opinion often enough, and I also slum as an IP (from my mobile device, for instance)--yeah, one gets a different treatment. Thanks for all your good work, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, don’t bother. There are too many genuinely interested contributors. This drive by still hasn’t acknowledged COI or plagiarism, but complains that adding content is too hard. You’ve been generous with your time, and gone the extra mile. Thanks and cheers, Bob. 38.98.231.45 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make myself available to the user so that I can assist him if he asks. I hope he decides to take advantage of this and benefit from the opportunity. If not, then oh well... I tried. Thanks for the follow-up message and for caring about my time - I appreciate it very much. Have a safe trip! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just Chilling, thanks for your explanation here [60], though it doesn't appear that the account has any interest in contributing, other than to spam on behalf of non notable bands in which he's a member. I also wonder whether they were responsible for similar edits dating from 2007 [61]. I read the Box of Lies article this morning, before it was moved and deleted. It made my case better than I can do now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a couple of thoughts. If they have no interest in contributing except to promote their band, now that they have been given full guidance, no doubt that in the event of future inappropriate edits they will be justifiably blocked. The other point I would add is that AIV has a high admin footfall and in the over seven hours that your report was up no other admin was prepared to block. Just Chilling (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they'll be blocked, Just Chilling, maybe not; we know that problematic accounts can slip under the radar for years, especially if enough time elapses between brief spates of disruption. As for traffic at AIV, sometimes disruptive accounts whose edit patterns are less overt do get overlooked. It's a good noticeboard, especially if the reported account has posted libel or nonsense multiple times. The less spectacular bones can get plowed under. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate some administrative eyes on these (good non-admins, too). There's been edit warring on both articles in the last few days, by IP accounts from the DC Government and Park Police, in efforts to whitewash some of the unflattering content. There's also been some bias in the other direction--I can't imagine that the shooting belongs in the lede of the park police article. NeilN, Drmies, some attention will be appreciated. Not sure if this is best reported to COI or page protection. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, I reverted some of the IPs edits and blocked them for (obvious) edit warring. But they've used more than one IP, so maybe you can look to see if semi-protection is appropriate. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you may want to keep an eye on this article. Since you created it there have been numerous unsourced additions, and the references were removed--I restored your version. By the way, I'm running across several such cases, in which articles seem to be chosen at random for test edits by new accounts. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yes, I saw it happening too by way of Recent changes--though I had the feeling I looked at it before. But as you know, since you are also a creator and not a destroyer, that some kind attention can do justice to the subject, justice which it deserves. That topic is also in the blind spot, in our content gap. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look and removed the 'notable cases' section which seemed to be the most egregious - looking at the sources most just briefly mentioned Johnson's name whereas the section was written as if he was entirely responsible for the decisions, an all worded fairly non-neutrally. That's all I've got time for now if anyone else wants to take a closer look at the rest. Melcous (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you around here for a while now (and years ago on an Ipv4 IP, if you're the same one I'm thinking of). It takes a lot to deal with vandalism and grief from people who automatically think you're a vandal just because you're an IP editor. Just wanted to drop a note of appreciation for the many times I've gone to rollback some vandalism, only to find out you've beaten me to the punch cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Six years ago there was a talk page discussion re: red links. The upshot was that they stayed. My take is that it's a repository for promotion of non notable products. Any reason I shouldn't start removing them? Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:E944:EA6A:CEDE:919E (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would do a cursory search for each of the redlinked brands to make sure they're non-notable, and then remove them. I'd keep the text but not the link if it's a sub-item on a notable brand, if that makes sense? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good one, for them that's up for it. Lots of unsourced, not entirely neutral, and the most recent contributor offered this explanation: [62]. Previously, an editor to this and related articles was blocked for copyright violations, and given the large sections of unsourced content, that may be worth double-checking. Thoughts by experienced editors and administrators wiser than I are welcome. 2601:188:180:11F0:E944:EA6A:CEDE:919E (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Melcous. In such cases I look to see if the awards are substantial enough to establish notability, and I don't see it here. Nor does there appear to be substantial biographical coverage by reliable sources--lots of articles by him, none about him. 2601:188:180:11F0:E944:EA6A:CEDE:919E (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I am new to all of this and appreciate your input. It will be helpful as I learn to edit and create future materials. TaxPapa (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't comment at my talk page again. Your story is fluid [67] to the extent that your self-characterizations aren't credible. In the future, direct your comments to the COI noticeboard discussion, and stop messing with the comments on article talk pages. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Issues
Hello. Thank you for your suggestions. They were very helpful. I am an arts researcher and have a tendency to drift towards art speak. Please let me know if there are any outstanding issues which should be addressed. Thanks.
Gustaveflaubert (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your AIV report
Since I can't ping an IP, just wanted to point out the response to your AIV report about Food cart. While I see there are a lot of socks there, I'm not convinced this is one of them; 8 years of editing and good edits except for that one. Anyway, I commented here: [68]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; to be honest, it seems like even the current amount of Portland info is excessive, but I'm kind of in easy-stuff-only mode right now. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely. Every major city has a food truck economy--probably much can be added about the ethnic carts in midtown Manhattan, or the industry in New Haven, just to note two examples I see on a weekly basis. No reason for undue attention to Oregon, but there we are for now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Thank you for letting me know that there is still an outstanding issue. As you suggested, I read Wikipedia's guidelines on COI. It was very helpful. From what I understand though, the COI does not apply. While I know of a lot of artists worldwide, both living and dead, I am not related to them in any way, nor am I being paid to write or edit Wikipedia entries. Would you be so kind to let me know what it is that I need to do to rectify the matter? Thanks!Gustaveflaubert (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gustaveflaubert. It's usually a safe bet that when a new editor registers and contributes exclusively to one topic, he or she has an agenda, a conflict of interest. Your initial edits were promotional in nature, and I knocked them down a bit. You need not be paid to have a conflict of interest--it's possible to infer an association of some sort with Mr. Dams; by the way, given sources stating that his gallery was closing in August 2017, how do you know that envoy enterprises continues to represent artists from its 87 Rivington Street address? The main remaining issue is that there are no inline footnotes in the article, which will help to connect the content to verifiable sources. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi, Gustaveflaubert. I hope Bob doesn't mind, but I thought I'd give you my 2¢ here. COI and PAID are two related, but distinct concepts. You are PAID only if you stand to benefit financially, either directly through payment or if it is a function of your employment, from increased publicity for the subject of the article. You are also PAID if you indirectly benefit financially, for example, if you are a commissioned salesperson selling the artist's works. You can be considered a COI editor if you have any sort of relationship with the subject of the article. Typical of a COI editor, you have interperted that to mean "related", when it's common knowledge that there are numerous forms of relationship, most not involving being related. An excellent test of whether you have a relationship that would constitute COI is to ask yourself, "Do I have any knowledge of the subject of the article that does not come from reliable secondary sources?" If the answer is yes, you likely have a COI. John from Idegon (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I like to ask interesting ones sometimes. Melcous, JJMC89, Drmies, NeilN, TonyBallioni, what do you make of the edit history for Howieanson (talk·contribs)? He's contributed fairly extensively to high profile articles on baseball, and I'm unsure whether all the WP:SELFCITEing is acceptable (in other words, it looks a bit bush league to me). There's a penchant to not only use his books as sources--I'm not sure how authoritative they are--but to mention himself often in the body of article content, as in Ty Cobb. Conversely, he has received some newspaper mention for his scholarship. Do we thank him for contributing or take a closer look here for WP:OR and self-promotion? Since this seems a bit nuanced for a noticeboard, I wanted to get some opinions in a less formal venue. And maybe what puzzles me will be an easy out for you. Thoughts welcome. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:EDF7:4B07:BA07:1DF3 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This contains three times his own name, and one trite phrase ("contains a finding"). I can't find this publisher anywhere, but the book seems valuable enough--but yeah, that writing is way too promotional. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the fact that the only thing tile books has published is other books by "Howard Rosenberg" it seems some sort of self-publishing thing, so I'm thinking to revert away. Book also seems to contradict a (apparently, dunno anything about baseball) seemingly more respected biography.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could have semi-protected the article but that would have prevented you from editing it. Instead, I removed a big block of unreferenced promotional content. Will you please begin a talk page discussion and ping me? Perhaps we can jointly explain the policies and guidelines to the (presumably) eager law students editing that article. Take care. Cullen328Let's discuss it00:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here nearly 5 hours later, no one has dealt with your report at UAA. But we continue to make it nearly impossible for people to become administrators so they can help with this. Dealing with UAA reports is one of the simplest tasks for an administrator, which is likely why it's the most perenially backlogged board. Either we've got to quit expecting ridiculous qualifications for admins or there will need to be some amount of limited tool unbundling. UAA is pretty cut and dried. Either it's a blockable username or it's not. This one obviously is. John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. You know, that's an interesting idea--I would almost consider requesting an adminship, if I were permitted to confine myself primarily to checking in periodically at a few noticeboards, just to clear backlogs on easy stuff like that. Leave the subtle business for Drmies to suss out. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think RfA is broken, necessarily. UAA is pretty cut and dried, true, but there's a few things--first of all, username blocks don't pay much, I think it's $.50 per block. That's nothing. Second, it's kind of tedious, I think, for some admins, because if you want to do it right (for promotional usernames) you should also check edits, and user pages, and sandboxes, etc. Third, I don't know. I patrol that page somewhat regularly, and yeah sometimes there's just dozens and dozens of names. Some of my colleagues leave these templated "is being discussed with editor" notes, and that will slow that one down considerably. I'm very quick to block for a username violation, but maybe I'm just jaded. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I find a UAA report for User:Officialcalebross. Yes, that's a username violation: role account. Their user page is already a bit spammy. I block for the username, and find they've also been spamming on Ross W. Greene, and change the block to an advertising block, so the record reflects both violations (can't give them a username/spam block, since they weren't spamming "on" their username, so to speak). Then I make the appropriate reverts on the Greene article, to find that more needs to be done, some of which I do, including tags, and so I spend up to six minutes on this one report. In other words, the block is cut and dried, but the rest is not. And now I gotta pee and get to work. MAN US POOR ADMINS HAVE A TOUGH JOB 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm and then the next one, a bot thing, also took almost five minutes to figure out. Really, it's not always that simple, and I think there's really just a few of us, no more than a dozen, who look at these. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Drmies, I wasn't intending to draw you into a serious response, though it's appreciated all the same. No, I'm more discouraged by the silence at an otherwise active noticeboard over this [70]. It is the sort of nuanced issue--though not much, I'd submit, given COI and original research--that Wikipedia editors will sometimes turn a blind eye to. I've published in mass market journals for a decade, and have never cited my own research; to me it's a non-starter, and it's usually an embarrassment for an editor to do so. In the past I've closed shop, albeit temporarily, over such things. I think I'll shut down for a few hours. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know. It's cool. If you really feel bad, I'd suggest we start a fund: each time you or any administrator wrongly reverts one of my edits and gives me a warning, ten dollars gets added to the pot. It can go to a private account I'll set up offshore, or to benefit Wikipedia. I'd prefer it be sent my way, of course. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back further, I think I first got involved with the article May 2017. Serial Number 54129 helped out, and Bbb23 protected it at least twice. This continues to be an almost astonishingly persistent case of COI, promotional and disruptive edits, with lots of sock activity dating from that time. I'm happy to take this package to ANI for its impressive longevity and variety. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to strike the message above and change the header to avoid confusion by other editors who read this talk page. You have my permission to delete this section. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
Would appreciate some eyes on these, as COI accounts from VITAC are involved. I've asked for protection for the mall article--a number of accounts have restored an original research history, and are damned if they'll allow some know-nothings to remove it. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am not feeling as generous as you Bob, but I have reverted the changes on two articles - there are no sources, content is POV and OR, and there were even changes from UK to US spellings. Puritan27 you need to start listening to and engaging with other editors as it seems you have much to offer, but you have not understood the requirements for content to be added in this project. Melcous (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit of overlap with the Facebook post but it is dated 2017 and we've have the content since 2012, so I won't be doing revision deletion at this time for that portion. Some of the more recent additions were revision deleted. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Sure looks like it was copied from here. This seems to be a continuing problem with COIs. This seems to be the last pretty stable version [76]. I was about to do something but you beat me to it. In 2009, an editor named Loulou79 added promotional content, now someone named LHD79 (gee who could those initials belong to?) is doing the same. It's a hot mess. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. Yes please do. Just having a quick look I couldn't help myself from removing one completely unsourced list of non-notables. Melcous (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and there's still plenty left that's inadequately sourced. Mostly the promotion has been undertaken for years by one account [77], and it's likely that they'll seek to restore much of this. A few eyes on the article will be appreciated. Thank you, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, Drmies and John from Idegon for hashing this out. I merely glanced quickly, but knew it didn't smell right--the talk page discussion allowed too much latitude. For what it's worth, I think we can live with either Drmies' pared version or John's complete removal. Do not get into a thing over it, it ain't worth it. 2601:188:180:1481:D0B2:2100:B473:6B99 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted an ACDS BLP related alert on their talk page. I am not sure their post blocking record enough for an indefinite block, even given their rather obvious track record of promotional editing. But with that notice posted any admin can impose sanctions as needed to protect the article including a block or topic ban. Alternatively you can try to move the mediation request to ANI. Her history is so problematic that they might decide to just indef her. But for now I'd decline the mediation request with a warning that any further problematic editing will be referred to an admin for action. If this continues, ping me and I will deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) Then you and I might be about the same age, Ad. Though given my recent history, thirty years sounds wildly optimistic. The extinction story has been carried by numerous news services here. Of course, if you're of a particular political mind, you'll shrug it off as fake news, or welcome it as evidence of the impending rapture. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Theologically I have no use for any of these weird sects. I am still trying to figure out how John Darby managed to hit his head after being thrown from a horse and inflict brain damage on untold millions of people right up to the present time. As for my politics... let's just say I'm different and I've learned to shrug a lot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call myself a legitimist at heart, but a pragmatic monarchist in the end. I am a collateral descendant of the aid d' camp to James II/VII at the Battle of the Boyne. But yeah, I have very little use for the modern world once you get past antibiotics, good dental care and the modern preference for regular bathing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
