This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Fashion Net, again
Haadaa has not edited for over a week; responses to queries about COI were not credible in light of their behavior and editing. However the three articles have all been deleted via AfD so for now, closing. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Haadaa (say it out loud ...) is an SPA who has mostly been using {{request edit}} in a perfectly acceptable way, but who has not – to my knowledge – declared a conflict of interest. Haadaa, do you have some personal or professional connection to Stig Harder and his various businesses? If so, you are obliged to declare it. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
We request a review of whether Justlettersandnumbers may have a conflict of interest after his/her repeated removal of edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_Net.Haadaa (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed haadaa's latest edits. Roxy the dog.bark 11:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Haadaa, I've looked at the last hundred article edits for both Roxy the dog and Justlettersandnumbers, as well as their most-edited articles. Neither has an editing pattern which leads me to believe they have a conflict of interest. I encourage you to
No, them not revealing their identities does not mean you have reason to believe affiliation with competitors. If you have evidence that they are affiliated with competitors, the place to report it is the very page you're on now. However, be aware that it takes more to show a conflict of interest than just showing they are making edits that you don't like. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't believe they have a conflict of interest only if they refuse to reveal their identities (if they don't, it will just corroborate our suspicion). We believe they have a conflict of interest (and that they also are colluding in a concerted attempt to belittle and intimidate) in that they consistently remove legitimate edits sourced from independent media, like the page for the International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences that they hastily deleted.
article pasted by Haadaa
International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences
Abbreviation
IAFAS
Formation
April 7, 2016
Type
Fashion organization
Purpose
Supporting the fashion industry as fashion, tech and ethics combine to redefine the future.
The International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences (IAFAS) is an organization dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of the fashion industry.
Executive members of the Academy, including Diane Pernet, Chair of Fashion Department at Paris College of Art Donald Potard and Launchmetrics President Eddie Mullon[2][3] have since 2016 been selecting the nominees and winners for the annual FASHION NET Awards.[4]
Are you trying to silence us by deleting our comment here as well? Haadaa (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Haadaa, this is not an appropriate place to paste articles. If you want to temporarily preserve the content, please use your own sandbox ("Sandbox" link at the very top of the page, next to your user name). Please do not edit other people's posts or change the thread title. I've restored both the deleted comment from Justlettersandnumbers's post and the original title. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Why on earth would you restore Justlettersandnumbers's bullying remarks? Is this the culture among Wikipedia editors? Insulting people? We posted the article here to demonstrate its authenticity, proper language and independently sourced facts. The article being deleted as prompted by Roxy the dog evidence of bias. We request you reinstate the article, or we can do it ourselves from our backup. If the sources indeed do not meet Wikipedia standards, please explain why and we'll wait until we find acceptable sources. Haadaa (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Per this edit summary by IP 173.116.133.164, I have reviewed the edits of User:Justlettersandnumbers and find that they are entirely appropriate and in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines concerning neutral point of view, referencing, and the Manual of style. I see no evidence whatsoever to support the absurd accusation of "conflict of interest", unlike the obvious conflict of interest by the article's creator [1]. Justlettersandnumbers has worked tirelessly on Wikipedia to keep it free from copyright violations and promotionalism. To the IP who made the comment and the inappropriate edits, please note that this is an encyclopedia article, not an advertising blurb or "profile" for your company. If you continue to treat it as such, your edits will be reverted.
The same applies to your absurd and bad faith assertions here re both Justlettersandnumbers and Roxy the dog who has been a Wikipedia editor 2008. As for the article on the "International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences", note that it was speedily deleted by an administrator (RickinBaltimore) who made an independent assessment of the speedy deletion nomination. Neither Justlettersandnumbers nor Roxy the dog deleted the article. The references in the version you pasted here are a series of press releases which do nothing whatsoever to attest to this subject's notability. If taken in this state to an AfD discussion, the results would not only be "delete", but probably also "salt". The subject comprehensively fails the notability criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record: I don't have any connection with, knowledge of, or interest in Stig Harder or Fashion Net or Lumière (magazine), nor any connection with or interest in any competitor of the same (whoever that might be, I really wouldn't know).
What I do have an interest in is preventing misuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, which Stig Harder, under the username Shousokutsuu, did from about 2006 until this discussion in 2013, and Haadaa appears to be trying still to do. Haadaa, you don't seem to have answered the question: do you have some personal or professional connection to Stig Harder and/or his various businesses? (please note that you are under absolutely no obligation to reveal your identity in your reply). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Haadaa, related to Justlettersandnumbers's question above, could you please clarify what you mean by your repeated use of "we" and "our" in this discussion. I assume you are not using the "royal we". Does "we"/"our" refer to (a) you and others who share this account and its password, (b) you and another (different) registered editor who has edited these articles, or (c) you as a representative of Mr. Harder and/or his companies? Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers, for declaring your intentions and that you're not affiliated with any of the parties that may have an interest in the subjects of these articles. We will ensure that any future edits comply with Wikipedia standards and add content only sourced from notable media. We, ourselves, have no interest in promoting any of the companies, brands or institutions whose articles we edited or created; we were simply not aware of the content or sources we added not not having met Wikipedia standards. Haadaa (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I, too, would like to know the answers to those questions.
1. To whom are you referring when you write "we"? I'm not asking you to reveal your "real name" or other personal information. The answer to this question might be "I'm using the 'royal we' because I'm the Queen of Ruritania," "We means me and my aardvark Fifi - we're inseparable," or "We refers to me and my co-worker(s)." Note that Wikipedia policy does not allow more than one person to use an account.
Taking a look at the content, it's a surprisingly thin article for the topic. Basic information is lacking - ownership of the site, business history, etc. The site doesn't say much about that, but the site claims that the site name is trademarked. The trademark FASHION NET is held by Fashion Net, Inc. a Delaware corporation. Business address on Madison Avenue is a Regus business center rent-a-space location. None of the references appear to be full articles about the subject; the ones listed are mere list entries, and some of the cites ("The Guardian. 1995. "Netwatch" by Jack Schofield. p. 5") are too vague. Lumiere Magazine is a site with a long history in the Internet Archive. The two sites have years of content, yet few third-party references. Not sure why. John Nagle (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we are not seeing the wood for the trees on this little suite of articles, and our concern for establishing if an editor has a WP:COI is a waste of effort. Look instead to the sourcing, across all three articles, which is incredibly weak.
The two websites concerned may well have been the firsts they claim to be (but what the hell is an internet magazine anyway?) but they have been left behind in an internet backwater for many years. Nothing worthwhile exists there now. Stig may well have created both. My point therefore is that we only have adequate sourcing (just) for one article that says simply that Stig created these websites. Nothing more. We should say it in an encyclopeadic tone though!
Of course, a case could be made to delete all three for failing WP:GNG and perhaps that is the way to go.
Does anybody have any thoughts? -Roxy the dog.bark 18:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Neither site is old enough for Notable websites founded before 1995. That's Wikipedia's de-facto cutoff for notable just for being early. I looked for better sourcing, but didn't find much. AfD might be appropriate. John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
My sense is that if they're deleted before we resolve the COI issue they'll quickly be recreated, and we'll have another round or five of WP:IDHT. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all, the COI here is blindingly obvious from the editing pattern and the responses here from the editor in question, or rather the non-responses. Even so, BlackcurrantTea, resolving the COI issue is not going to stop recreation as we all know from long experience. However, a "Delete" decision at AfD basically stops recreation since any recreation which is not substantially improved in content and referencing from the original will be speedily deleted per G4, and generally speaking a subsequent recreation will result in "salting" the subject. Like John Nagle, I have been struck by how little has been written about both Stig Harder and his creations. There is basically nothing written about him that is not written by him (including his own Wikipedia article) or is a Wikipedia mirror. I've done an extensive search (also in languages other than English) and also have access to the HighBeam archives—nothing. The only claim to fame for both him and Fashion Net is that it was allegedly the first internet fashion site referenced to the book Fashion Technology: Today and Tomorrow. This where it gets interesting. That "text book" is from an Indian publisher, Mittal Publications. In my experience many books from Indian publishers plagiarise from Wikipedia and other text books. Sure enough, if you look at the book (first published in 2007), you will find large verbatim chunks from the October 2006 versionofFashion, including the verbatim assertion "Fashion made its debut on the world wide web in January 1995 with the launch of Fashion Net by Stig Harder in Paris, France." (That sentence was added by User:Haadaa in June 2006 with this edit.) So, we don't even have a reliable source for the one claim that might confer notability in the absence of significant coverage. Voceditenore (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Voceditenore, my point on getting through COI first was based on the (perhaps overly optimistic) idea that if the editor(s) finally understood that Wikipedia doesn't tolerate this sort of thing, they might actually stop. It's not something I feel strongly about, and I'm not opposed to the articles' going to AfD. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Good catch on the Indian source, Voceditenore. That's entirely my fault, I added that reference – as I recall, the only one I was able to find – in 2014. Once that is gone, there just isn't enough to support notability for Stig Harder, Fashion NetorLumière (magazine), and I would nominate those for deletion if it weren't for the accusation of bias above; perhaps someone else would be kind enough to do the honours? We may also need to look at the notabiity of some other Shousokutsuu topics such as Hatice Güleryüz and The Ravenswood. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I think Hatice Güleryüz would scrape a pass at an AfD (there are a lot of sources in Turkish which are not in the article), and The Ravenswood would definitely pass. BlackcurrantTea, I'm pretty sure the editor under consideration is fully aware that COI won't be tolerated. Hopefully, the message will really sink in this time. But there is also considerable evidence both on and off-wiki that they are not averse to using more than one account or editing as an IP to avoid scrutiny. Pursuing this in light of their seeming refusal to answer whether they have a connection to the subject despite being asked multiple times, is probably a waste of time because the articles under consideration in this discussion should be deleted regardless of whether they were created by someone with a COI. Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I suggest sending Fashion Net and Lumière (magazine) to AfD, along with Stig Harder. Several people have now tried to find better sources, with no success. Those sites are old, yes. But they don't have significant coverage in WP:RS reliable sources. If they mattered in the fashion world, they would; fashion is well covered in the media. No one is seeing that. John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I tried, more than once, to AfD these three articles, via instructions on AfD-ing stuff and with Twinkle. Alas, the obfuscatory nature of those procedures has beaten me. I would rather the articles remain on the project than try again. They should be nuked though, which illustrates how mindbogglingly difficult the deletion procedure is to somebody who has never tried before. -Roxy the dog.bark 17:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Note. Twinkle works, even if I'm unsure how. -Roxy the dog.bark 08:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that, Roxy the dog. (edited to add Roxy's username. I need to work on my pinging.) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Natsecobserver revisited
NOTHERE user indeffed. article reclaimed for WP Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been reported here before and is an SPA on this article and a related company. User:JesseRafe recently did a good job of cleaning the article up to remove the poorly sourced/non-neutral content but Natsecobserver has since slow edit warred to maintain their version. This has been their only attempt to communicate despite repeated requests and they complained that the article no longer contained "significant current information about the subject's career". Given that for the last 5 years their edits have only been focussed on promoting a narrow band of subjects, I doubt that they are here to write an encyclopedia. SmartSE (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI, User in question reverted again since this post. Strangely, Natsecobserver keeps alluding to an "obscure blog", both on my Talk page (their one Talk page appearance since 2011 sockpuppet inquiry) and in a preponderance of their edit summaries, nothing of the sort was ever added or disputed. User's edit summaries in general seem to hinge on the argument that the notability of a reference is validity for their schlock and license to add "according to blue link" all over the page, making the material border on unreadable. JesseRafe (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I have banninated the user. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We're seeing some COI editing related to binary option topics. An anon (location Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, Israel, home of SpotOption) tried to delete all the bad stuff about SpotOption.[2] Someone caught that in about an hour. Please watchlist. As background, the Tel Aviv based binary option industry, having been exposed as a huge scam, is collapsing. Banc De Binary (one of the worst COI cases in Wikipedia history) ceased operations recently, and so did about four other companies in the industry. Israel's Knesset is preparing to make the entire industry illegal in Israel. SpotOption is the technology provider behind most of the industry. John Nagle (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor who has declared they are an employee of Odeon Cinemas in an edit here keeps removing sourced content from the article with edits like this. While I understand that the "controversy" is a dated and may no longer be an issue, it does seem to have been an issue so mentioning it is the article seems OK. I was able to find another source here discussing the matter. Perhaps the text does need some rephrasing and cleaning up per WP:UNDUE to make it more neutral sounding, but I'm not sure if I agree with the IP that removing it all together is appropriate just because it was a problem that has (apparently) been fixed. The IP has been advised about their COI and has been encouraged to try and use the article's talk page to discuss things, but it's not clear if it's the same employee each time. So, I am wondering if some editors more experienced in dealing with company-related COI stuff wouldn't mind taking a look at the IPs edits and see if they are OK. Not all of them appear to be bad, but the IP does seem to be trying to update articles as if it were they were things found on the company's official website instead of on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The whois says it's registered to "Daisy Communications". The article about Daisy says it "sells internet hosting services" - more simply, a web host provider. Aren't web host IPs blocked due to the fact that a lot of them have poor security? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The COI editing has to stop, but the section about website accessibility 15 years ago probably was too large. The linked source says "He was annoyed that the site only worked if you were using Microsoft's Internet Explorer..." That sounds more like a classic problem with Internet Explorer 6, which peaked at 90% market share back then, and was sufficiently incompatible with other browsers that many sites supported it only. John Nagle (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@KATMAKROFAN and Nagle: Thank you both for taking a look. I don't know anything about the webhost IP thing, but if that's an issue then I'm not sure what should be done about it. As for the "website accessibility" content, I agree that it probably should be trimmed to better reflect the sources which discuss it. I'm just not sure if it needs to be completely removed like the IP has been trying to do. I'm also not sure if an IP who states that are employed by the company should be subject to WP:PAID. Techinically, I guess they would be being paid by their employer, but not sure if that automatically means they are specifically being paid to edit this particular Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The IP is back making major changes to the article. I'm not sure how many more times it's worth asking the IP to follow WP:COIADVICE. They haven't responded to anything so far and it seems unlikely they eventually will. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I've watchlisted this and will help keeping the IP at bay. We will be able to bring them for edit warring soon which will resolve things. However, the IP has a point - the article is pretty poor, with a bunch of unsourced content and uneven coverage over time. One way to settle it would be to find great sources and revise the whole thing. I don't have an interest in this topic, but if anybody does, that would go a long way toward giving the IP nothing to talk about other than promotional baloney. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The articles listed above are chock-full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and most likely not WP:NPOV either. The username Bpc.sg is probably a violation (initialism of Bible-Presbyterian churches Singapore). Watchman1234 has admitted to being connected with this church (and has an interesting interpretation of WP:SYNTH...), see User_talk:Watchman1234#The_Burning_Bush. I have tried to explain the issues to Watchman1234, but clearly did not do a very good job. I must admit that this subject is not something I am interested in at all and I would like to leave these articles behind me and use my time for things that are better at holding my attention. However, the sorry state of these articles really needs some extra eyes, which is why I am posting here. Pinging StAnselm, who has edited these articles before (and created the one on verbal plenary preservation). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This is difficult, because the articles are in such a mess. Normally there is no COI in an editor editing the article of a denomination to which he or she belongs, or that of a doctrine which he or she believes. Anyone, for example, can edit the God article, regardless of whether they believe in God. So I believe there is no strict COI here - e.g. neither editor is named in any of the articles. Yet because it is such a small denomination, I suspect they know the people involved, and will therefore have to work very hard to ensure neutrality. That does not appear to have happened so far. StAnselm (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess that's true in general, but when belonging to a denomination results in POV/SYNTH/OR editing, then I think it is a COI problem. --Randykitty (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In response to Randykityy's query, I replied as follows: "I attend the services of B-P churches and have friends in both VPP and non-VPP churches. Occasionally, I also attend the services of non-BP churches and have friends in non-B-P churches too. I'll be objective and write based on information in the weeklies and publications of the B-P churches as well as The Burning Bush. All these are easily available and accessible on the internet. The inside knowledge helps, as it aids my understanding when I read the sources. I believe the same applies to Bpc.sg although I cannot be sure that he / she is also linked with the B-P churches. I'll follow WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:ISNOT, WP:RS and other guidelines and policies as I learn along the way. As I have not heard from you on the latest edit for "The Burning Bush", may I assume that this is okay now? I shall work to follow Wikipedia policies as far as possible and use only facts and information which can be substantiated. --watchman1234 6 June 2017" It is unfortunate that Randykitty is apparently attempting to have me barred from contributing by inquiring about my background on the pretext of trying to understand the basis of my "inside knowledge". Whatever my reply, even if I should say that I'm a member of a non-VPP church, it appears that he would still say that I cannot be objective because of my VPP persuasion. Randykitty has apparently ignored that I have quoted materials from both VPP and non-VPP sources and if he should bother to look at all these sources, he would have the same level or close to my level of "inside knowledge." I don't hide non-VPP sources and, as far as I know, I don't misquote them. On critical points, I adhere to direct quotations to avoid misrepresenting. In fact, when a non-VPP source disappeared and re-surfaced again under another name, I inserted the re-surfaced source as reference so that readers can read the full non-VPP article from the new source to verify what I had written. I don't think there is any COI -- thanks to talkStAnselm for his view that there is strictly no COI and we should not be stopping someone from writing simply because the editor knows the person(s) involved. If there is any COI, it should be talkBpc.sg assuming his/her initial refers to "Bible-Presbyterian Church Singapore" but I'm fine with talkBpc.sg. If the focus is to be on the writing, and not on the writer, I don't see why Randykitty is making such a fuss about the matter after pointing me to Wikipedia's policy on civility about not seeing our fellow editors as biased or prejudiced. I started to be an editor not too long ago and was not familiar with all the technical terms like SYNTH, OR, etc. which Randykitty heaped on me apparently to attempt to hinder me from contributing. It is not because of belonging to a denomination that results in SYNTH/OR. It this were so, then the many people who do not use the KJV would be disqualified from writing on VPP/non-VPP since this would result in SYNTH/OR and bias against VPP; similarly the same applies to people who use the KJV as this would also result in SYNTH/OR and bias against non-VPP. I shall attempt to see what POV means although my effort at WP:NPOV seems to have been disregarded. I sincerely hope Randykitty is sincere in wanting to stay clear and is not using any surrogate or proxy to act for him.--Watchman1234 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Watchman1234, for this clear demonstration of the problems here. And if editors here think that COIN is not the venue for this, I'm more than willing to move this to WP:ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Watchman1234, Conflict of Interest is not a problem on its own. On Wikipedia, as in academia, we try to manage it. However, in certain cases, a COI can prevent an editor from editing neutrally with respect to certain articles. When this happens, it leads to behavioural issues such as edit warring and rehashing the same arguments again. And ultimately this might result in a block. If you are a member of that Church, you might have a conflict of interest which can affect your editing behaviour. In your case, you are allowed to edit the article as others. But if editors disagree with your edits, please do not edit war and respect the wishes of the community. In addition, saying I shall attempt to see what POV means although my effort at WP:NPOV seems to have been disregarded. I sincerely hope Randykitty is sincere in wanting to stay clear and is not using any surrogate or proxy to act for him. doesn't help. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Randykitty thanks for posting here. Bpc.sg is a username violation - it is an acronym for Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) and it should be soft blocked at least yes? Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I would have done this myself, but given the above I feel involved and tend to err on the side of caution, so I'll leave it for another admin to do the block. --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please make sure proper actions and COI notices have been applied to this article? ---Another Believer(Talk) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer: It would be helpful if you said a bit about what the problem is, with a diff if that is appropriate. - Bri (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Bri: Not so much a problem, just wanting to make sure this edit was appropriate and wondering if any other action needs to take place. I left a note on the user's talk page directing him to this discussion, and I've reverted several of his edits but I'm also trying to avoid edit warring... ---Another Believer(Talk) 19:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Aha, it's this edit summary ... I'll be away from WP for a bit but I'm sure one of the other regulars will see it. - Bri (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I should have provided the disclosure diff. Thanks for checking the article's history. ---Another Believer(Talk) 19:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I dont know how this chat and stuff works on Wiki - I just wanted to some more info on the march4trump page that gives more of what happened.
If this is a page that is supposed to talk about the event I dont see what the problem is with adding that I was involved in the event, I am President of Gays for Trump and we were involved.
Also that Joy and Andre took a part of it, and I linked their wiki pages. Also the number of participants was wrong because I did the ticketing system and I know who were registered outside of the facebook page.
I also know from 800-1500 people attended. Not 150. So I just need someone to put the info out there. Also I dont see what is the problem with having more pictures in the article including the nice on of me throwing out the shirts. The little picture in there just does not show the excitement this event had. So someone can work with me to make this page better. I took out any "adverting" links — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBoykin (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for posting here Peter. I posted a description of what we would look for connected editors to do in Wikipedia - would you please respond to the note at your Talk page? thx Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
so this is the page I talk about the page? btw reading these pages gives me a headache i dont have time to read all the COI page but I am getting to understand what yall are saying... but how can we get some of the edits on the page to say I organized it.. (not the tea party) and that Joy and Andre took a part of it, and that we had more than 150 show up... I had a whole lot more people sign up to attend and I know way more than 150 where there... it was more closer to 500-1000 at least... 150 really gives disservice to the cause.. plus how neutral is it when people site liberal websites? PeterBoykin (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
No. This noticeboard is the place where editors bring conflict of interest issues to the community's attention. This is explained way up at the top of this page. Again it is clear you are passionate but you need to slow down and get oriented to Wikipedia. This is not a blog but a mature and rather elaborate project. It takes time to figure out what is going on. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This BLP is notable but reads like a promotional campaign for the guy. I've tagged it, made a few copyedits, but the more I got into the article, the more promotional it seemed. I noticed the creator was warned about COI but don't know if anything was done. Atsme📞📧 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, I notified Ceylanhunal and Kerem Kuyucu about this discussion based on the article histories and added a COI policy notice for the latter. Yemeksepeti is Nevzat Aydın's company. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Autobiography, apparently tended by the subject through this and IP accounts for years without intervention. Requires major rewriting to bring to encyclopedic standards. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll run through it and probably stub it right down. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Itsmejudith> At some point I may do minor copy editing--every sentence beginning with "He" did this doesn't work very well. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be good, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I had to do one of them. It was irking me - X201 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This article was created a couple of years ago by Jim, who acknowledges he has a clear conflict but was unaware of wikipedia's guidelines. Having now read them, he asked on my talk page here whether the best thing to do was to delete the article, noting that he is currently turning the subject of the article into a commercial product. I'm not sure if deleting it is the best course of action (it may be) or whether there can be some editing done to help Jim make the article more neutral and overcome some of the COI issues, so was hoping someone here might be able to give some advice. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This editor is the wife of the article's subject, see this diff for example. She has continued to remove content from the page about his previous marriages, which are all sourced (and widely reported). I attempted to tidy up the personal life section and removed some speculation about a possible additional marriage in a hidden note and trimmed a comment about divorce proceedings to make it strictly neutral. However, she has continued to delete the content (and been reverted by multiple editors) see diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3. Melcous (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Pretty clear cut case of not understanding Wikipedia is an independent encyclopedia. The info she's removing is not wrong, she just doesn't like it. [3] I will add some notes to her talk page along with a final warning. --NeilNtalk to me 01:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I've since added three more accounts and more related articles. Not sure what the best course is here, and whether an SPI is merited. Any suggestions would be appreciated, DrmiesorNeilN. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:BD6D:6704:FD43:F4A1 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I've spent two full days researching and working very hard on this bio to meet Wikipedia's standards. Every time I turn around someone is modifying the article, deleting it, accusing me of a conflict of interest. I have no interest monetary or otherwise to write this article, expect by request by many many interested people in the autism community. I've been accused of making this an "advertisement." The subject of this article is a child, a philanthropist who has never been paid as much as ten cents, while she has both raised over $9,000,000 single handedly for autism education, and has brought a tremendous amount of hope to parents of children on the autism spectrum. These are the people who seek to know her and to find her. She is extremely notable to them, if not to you.
It's most disturbing to be the target of a Wikipedia witch hunt, when there is clearly room for articles on the most trivial subjects that are no longer even relevant in the modern world. To name one, the Pet Rock. There's an article that you give more weight to than a heroic child with autism who lit up the internet overnight with Katy Perry, during a full on autism epidemic. People all over the world were reached by the subject of this article. I am one and I have been asked by others to contribute to this article because none of them wish to be subjected to the arbitrary whims of your staff and waste their time and energy because their article is not about Silly Putty.
I am no relation to Jodi DiPiazza. I am mot employed by Jodi DiPiazza or her family and I am not being paid for writing this bio. She is a young child with autism who has inspired me and most of the world and I'm trying to write the best and most comprehensive biography I can for her. She is most certainly a notable person and deserves recoginition. Additionally, there are many people like myself, who are fans of her talent and her work who deserve to find more out about her on Wikipedia. You have pages for the most ridiculous miniscule things that no one is interested in and when someone attempts to write a biography of an extraordinary young girl, you make it impossible with these petty constraints on every word a person uses.
I reject your assertion that I have a conflict of interest. I do not. Nor have I contributed one statement, one word to the page that is A. not factual B. an advertisement. I am NEUTRAL. Jezrourke (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
DiPiazza is currently no way notable enough to appear in more established entertainer's bios.
I've taken a run at Bridget Taylor. Needs more inline cites or more material removed.
Jodi DiPiazza reads as if it were written by a PR agent, the president of her fan club, or a close family relative. For starters, all content not sourced to independent secondary sources (that is, sources not advertising the performance) should be removed.
Thank you very much, NeilN The piling on of Twitter, Facebook and Youtube links goes on today. Is page protection appropriate, or is it a matter of constantly amending the additions of multiple COI accounts? Because this is feeling like whack-a-mole. 2601:188:1:AEA0:BD6D:6704:FD43:F4A1 (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
If someone else doesn't get to it first, I will prune the article this week. If additions continue unabated after then, I'll ask for another admin to take action. --NeilNtalk to me 01:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Jezrourke, Torobert, you both need to be careful: log in properly when you edit. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Editor has been "seeding" articles with references to scientific articles published by "Mohamed T. Ghoneim", most likely the same person. This is not my field and the additions might conceivably be legitimate and helpful, so perhaps somebody who knows more about this subject could have a look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Randykitty, I posted the COI policy notice and a link to this discussion on their talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Opposition to copyright
Productive discussion is over. Hatted by request. Bri (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I added some part of my article (on ethical issues of copyright) to the Opposition to copyright. Is it a case of COI? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you not see how it could be viewed as promotional for you to post your own work in a field to the article about that field? As I indicated, you need to describe on the article talk page why your work needs to be added to the article and allow others to do so, if they agree. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
My argument is exactly related to the ethical issues of copyright and it has nothing to do with "my" interests. Why can't it be added? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
InJohn Hadley (philosopher), Milburn has added his own work and introduced himself as "the British philosopher" and this is a good article! How is this different? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
With over 5 million articles, there will undoubtedly be examples here similar to yours; that is a poor argument in favor of your position. You would be a lot better off and more likely to succeed if you discussed your proposed changes before adding them. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not a poor argument, because they are "good" articles and they are confirmed by several users. I'm ready to discuss them, but there can be no discussion when the other user uses insults to push his POV. We need a third party. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't even know what my POV is supposed to be in your mind. This is the third time you have leveled this accusation. It is you that are adding your opinions on the subject by posting excerpts of your own article. I am not attempting to add anything. WP:AGF. And please, if you are going to make such accusations on a noticeboard, have the decency to warn the editor that is the object of your accusations. Objective3000 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you ready to discuss without insults? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop making accusations and be civil. WP:CIV.
Did you insult me or not? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone hat this time drain. Objective3000 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
You came here with a question. Your question was answered. Now you’re just wasting the time of other editors by making useless snipes about something from three years ago. Move on. Objective3000 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm closing this by reasonable request. Everyone, please abide by consensus and don't be disruptiveorpointy. Bri (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article states that the director is Kyle Schlesinger. This person also created Kyle Schlesinger earlier, using the account Kschlesinger, and worked on it with a third account, KyleSchlesinger. DaphneLantier 23:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Now he's removing the COI tag from the article [4]. DaphneLantier 23:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It's moot now; he's blanked the page, so I've put it up for speedy deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
