WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 26#CyberLink Corp.

• {{userlinks|Brhannan}} - Editing Katie Reider, and somehow has access to her personal materials (as per his image talk contrib [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Katie_reider.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=227032856 here]). Is not only hiding his sig (oversigning as "Nomad 2"), but also misreading policy and spamming the article AfD. Definite COI and MEMORIAL problem, as well as no understanding of policies. MSJapan (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• {{userlinks|Plexusnexus}} is another new account that somehow managed to come up with a "source" for Katie Reider posted on talk (9 minutes after account creation), knows enough to claim "critical mass" of sources, but has no other edits. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• {{userlinks|38.112.25.6 }} - likely sock of Brhannan, as shown by[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katie_Reider&diff=prev&oldid=227670967 this diff], where the IP edits Brhannan's AfD comment. MSJapan (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have to say that I disagree with this assesment. First, the "access to her personal materials" is a photo lifted from her web site? Don't we all have access to that? Second, being active in a deletion debate is not the same as "spamming." Finally, why should you be surprised that any new user is not familiar with or misreads the nuances of wikipedia policy? We don't exactly have a training program. -MrFizyx (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::No, the contrib summary stated "the photo belonged to Katie"; that's not the same as "I got it off her website" (which is what the rationale said). And how would a random person know that it was her personal photo as opposed to a professional photographer's shot? Furthermore, we do have a training program; it's called the utilization of common sense, or "if you don't know what it does, don't touch it." We provide plenty of resources to use WP properly, and if people ignore them, that's their own problem. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

{{user|Daredevil0405}} added a non-notable political scorecard (0% for everyone!) from this lobbying group of questionable notability to scores of congresspersons. Additionally, he created an article on the pledge, and is now edit warring to re include the scorecard on various congresspersons pages. He appears to be involved with the organization taking the pledge in some way - see also {{user|09blonegan‎}}. The scorecard seems to provide no value to the various congresspersons he is adding it to, and seems, to my eyes, to be designed to publicize the lobbying group. Help! Carte Rouge (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Deleted and salted. MER-C 03:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}}

• {{article|A. Edward Moch}}
• {{userlinks|Aedwardmoch}} -- Supposed autobiography of a supposed psychic. He keeps creating the article after repeated warnings. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: deleted again by another sysop. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:(hands up) That would have been me - was contemplating salting the page for repeated recreation, but wasn't sure as the recreation isn't persistent in a temporal sense. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• {{article|Cherry Wilder}} - User:Bkonrad, who states on his user page "My wife's mother was Cherry Wilder, who spent time in NZ, Oz and Deutschland. (Shameless plug: Check out Cherry's posthumously published book The Wanderer {{ISBN|0312874057}})." has been editing Cherry Wilder as seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cherry_Wilder&action=history here]. This is a clear conflict of interest, and the promotion of the book on his user page is in violation of "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam" WP:LINKSPAM Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:Ottava Rima, who has apparently taken leave of his senses, is beginning to look like a stalker [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad&oldid=227517621#Your_recent_comments]. I created the Cherry Wilder page long before I was aware of any WP:LINKSPAM. So I'm not sure what Ottava is accusing me of here. That I am guilty of violating a guideline that was still [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Spam&oldid=3396844 embryonic] at the time. That having a link to the last book by my mother-in-law on my userpage makes me guilty of link spam? I've no problem with removing the blurb, that's not such a big deal -- but I find it hard to see that as spam -- I don't directly benefit in any way (I think my wife's sister may receive a few pennies in royalties every now and then). My reason for adding the link is that I thought it was an interesting book and something about myself that others might find interesting. Ottava seems to think I have some nefarious agenda. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

::You have been warned about your personal attacks. You have persisted in such. Furthermore, Bkonrad already "asked me to do something about it". Instead of correcting their behavior immediately, they chose to use this forum as a means to personally attack me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I hope that Ottava will list out some of the problems he perceives with this article. At first sight, I don't notice a neutrality problem. Do we need better sources? The article does not seem promotional. The complete list of short fiction seems too long, and might be trimmed or summarized. I don't see any third-party reviews of her work. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::::It seems that the only sources of the information is from his relationship, and the advertisement on his user page is troubling. There is no actual information on the person to provide notability, nor is there information except for a list of books. Is this article a "list" article? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Actually, the article had been created by someone else. Cherry is a published author. I'm not sure what notability criteria are in place for authors these days. I merely happened upon it a long time back and expanded it a bit. Most of the details I added can be found in the published interviews under External links. At the time, External links were accepted as a form of citation -- Wikiepdia's guidance and the mechanisms supporting citations have evolved considerably since then. I think the only detail I added that might not be sourced was to change the line She died in Wellington after a long battle with cancer. because it was not really "long" and the use of "battle" seemed a little clichéd. Considering that my substantive edits to this article were among my very first edits at a time when standards were still being developed for editing, I'm sure the article could use some improvement. But again, I'm really not sure what Ottava sees as the problem here. older ≠ wiser 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::You mean created by someone else and then you happened to be the first one to find it after a few days and then start expanding? You are, after all, the primary editor on the topic, and it almost seems to provide enough evidence to warrant a checkuser to compare you to Jose Ramos to make sure that you two aren't the same person, especially with Jose Ramos no longer editing after that time. It would appear, by looking at the logs, with you starting and he ending, and there being the cross over at Cherry Wilder, that there is a relationship between the accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::Oh yes, please do ask for a checkuser on myself and Jose Ramos. It is a preposterous and thoroughly baseless accusation. Aside from that edit, I don't believe I have ever crossed paths with Jose again. older ≠ wiser 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::As I have pointed out, the user quickly stopped posting after you joined, so claiming that you didn't cross paths again is a no argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::::And having edited the same article without any other evidence whatsoever is no basis for making accusations about sockpuppetry. You are the one who is engaging in incivility. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Well, stating that your wife would have an account, which would (I presume) would be using the same connection would already submit to the classification of puppet. There are reasonable uses for puppetry. However, it have a say on if you actually created the page or not. Regardless, other users say that the page is decent, but it will need third party sources to help verify notability and some other minor clean up. My major concern is with the promotional material on your talk page and to let the community know that there is a conflict in case anything in the future happens with the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::To make accusations that two accounts by spouses (which occasionally, but not always) edit from the same connection are sockpuppets is a perversion of what the sock puppetry policy is about. To make claims about conflict of interest solely because you are peeved at me for daring to disagree with you about how disambiguation pages should be formatted and for calling you out for being rude and insulting to other editors -- well that is just puckish of you. Now that you've done your self-proclaimed duty to the community, perhaps now you might consider expending some effort in learning how to be just a little less obnoxious and annoying. older ≠ wiser 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::As I stated before, there are legitimate reasons for sockpuppet accounts. And making claims of conflict of interest? It is clear from your user page that there is one. You didn't have to post personal information about yourself and admittedly promote a book in conflict with WP:SPAM. By the way, you asked me to take action, so I obliged. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Except that two different people (even if related) having accounts is not sockpuppetry and for you to insinuate that is wrong. Your understanding of COI also appears to be faulty. I edited the page a while back and have for the most part let it be, precisely because I did not want to edit a topic of such personal interest. If I had a mind to, I could have expanded the article at great length with all manner of anecdotes. But as you acknowledge, "other users say that the page is decent", so I'm not sure where you get off making such accusations. As for my user page, what is or is not SPAM is not a bright shining line. If impartial editors were to *politely* raise objections on my talk page, I'd be more inclined to take them seriously and not as an annoyance simply looking to hound me. Yes, I "asked" you to take action on my talk page -- primarily because I thought that perhaps if you did ask in a public forum and saw that no one else agreed with you, you might, perhaps, possibly come to your senses. But alas, that doesn't seem likely. older ≠ wiser 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Roommates_and_sharing_an_IP_address This] talks about your (supposed) situation. Note: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the same articles,". Also, Wikipedia:CoI#Examples - "Close relationships ... Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest ... Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area." I think it is reasonable from the above to say that you fall under CoI and that you are united to your wife's account for Wikipedia purposes. Also, WP:SPAM is clear that you cannot advertise items, even on your own user page. If you still think that policy supports you, please say so now. I have already quoted policy that was quite clear on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well fine, it is pretty obvious that you just don't get it and rather than beginning with one of the core fundamental principles of Wikipedia and assume good faith, you prefer to slice and dice the minutiae of various other guidelines and policies to justify making baseless accusations. Suit yourself. I'm giving up on the possibility rational discourse with you. older ≠ wiser 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:Also a conflict [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cherry_Wilder&diff=221564243&oldid=209345114 here], her "daughter" edits on the page too. Perhaps this would be the same daughter that Bkonrad's user page admits to being married to? This account seems also to be created about the same time as Bkronrad's. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::Um, yeah you got it Sherlock. That's my wife alright. It's really not an accident that our accounts were created at the same time. Is it now a crime for a spouse to also have an account or are you simply on a witchhunt? Or perhaps you merely enjoy mudslinging? It appears your interest in this article is entirely motivated by your animosity towards me. Perhaps you'd care to explain yourself? older ≠ wiser 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Your actions are extremely incivil and I ask for you to desist. Editing on topics that relate to yourself is frowned upon, and recent edits to the topic along with the promotional material on your user page are a breach. I asked you to remove the breach before, and you refused to. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::::How about if you stop making stupid and baseless accusations. Talk about incivil! Criminy. I'm sorry, but you are the one who is out of line here. older ≠ wiser 03:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article is reasonably written, and I do feel that the COI issues aren't too problematic here. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::It would be nice to have a source for the bio details. I think informal sources are acceptable for that, but it should be specified as more than personal knowledge.DGG (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

:::As I indicated above, most of the biographical details can be found in the interviews under external links. I'd prefer not to edit the article myself so as to avoid any additional baseless accusations from the likes of Ottava Rima.

{{resolved|One article deleted and editors inactive. JonHarder 11:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}}

• {{article|Minnesota Online}}
• {{article|Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System}}

Problem editors:

• {{UserSummary|MnOnline}}
• {{UserSummary|Marceldesade}}

I just put a prod on the Minnesota Online article. After the fact I found a [http://minnesotaonlineportfolio.project.mnscu.edu/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B32140AE5-36CC-4F06-ABBA-68D027B695CC%7D&DE=%7B619E82AC-33C5-4096-B0D6-B784EF567656%7D marketing plan] that included editing Wikipedia in the list of priorities. I expect that prod to expire and the article deleted because the problem editors have had no activity for over a year. However, this article should go to AfD if it is contested. Is there anything else to do about this blatant abuse of Wikipedia? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:I agree that the current form of Minnesota Online doesn't have much value. If we could get any reliable third-party sources, the topic could conceivably be of interest. (A state-wide center, presumably government-supported, that takes care of online instruction). I'll not object to the PROD, but hope that someone comes up with better sources before the five days runs out. Now, about the other article listed: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System. I suggest that it be dropped from this report because I don't see any neutrality problems. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::Both articles should remain as part of the documentation. The latter was created by a single purpose account that has only edited these two articles. Because there is a formal plan that enumerates Wikipedia as a marketing tool, these related organizations should both remain under scrutiny. Additionally, if user MnOnline edits again, the account probably should be blocked simply because the username is unacceptable (could be considered promotional and is likely a role account). ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::The account, MnOnline, has not edited since January, 2007. Not clear that blocking it would have any value. The account Marceldesade has not edited since 2006. The Minnesota Online article was deleted via PROD. Although raising this issue as a possible concern was useful, I believe there is no continuing threat, so I suggest that the it be marked Resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

{{article|Ken Lamberton}} - User:Kenlamberton created an article about himself and is the primary editor of that article. As such, it mostly reads as a promo piece for his books and self promotion. I have made some attempts to neutralize the article, but he usually comes in a few hours later and puts in more stuff, though he seems to be of questionable notability. His edits are not minor, and he has ignored both myself and another editor's notes on his talk page regarding the WP:COI guideline, and does not use the talk page at all. There is a blatant lack of neutrality, as he neglects to mention his 12 year prison term for child molestation or another info that isn't directly related to bolstering his books. I'm not sure what else to do at this point? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

{{article|Astro empires}} - Article was recreated by a user who seems to be an admin for this online video game (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astro_empires&oldid=228565926 diff]). Same user has also been actively participating in the article's current AfD discussion. Same user may have also participated in a past deletion review under a different name. MuZemike (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

{{userlinks|Xaman79}} — User as described above for recreating the article. MuZemike (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

{{userlinks|Astro Empires}} — Alleged former name of this user as cited in the above deletion review. MuZemike (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Dilenschneider Group}} - Dilenschneider Group seems to be a PR firm that made considerable revisions to the Philip J. Purcell article. Maybe someone should check it out. Troopedagain (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping you can help me with a Conflict of Interest dispute I am engaged in with User: Zodon. I am a contributor of several articles related to HPV and cervical cancer. User: Zodon feels this is a conflict of interest due to the fact that I have consulted with QIAGEN, the manufacturer of the HPV test. However, I am also a board-certified internist with broad medical experience in HPV, who also is a contributor to ABC Medical News. All of the changes I have suggested are backed up by recent citations from the medical literature. However, Zodon has not responded to the medical facts I was using to update the copy; he seems to be basing his opinions only on the fact that I have consulted with QIAGEN-which is one of a number of companies with which I have worked (as have many physicians).

I am unsure whether Zodon is a community member like myslef or a Wikipedia editor, and whether he has any medical background. I would welcome having a dialogue on the medical content of what I am proposing, and would be happy to make edits based on a common understanding of the data (see Cervical Cancer as an example). Can you help facilitate a next step, so that we can continue to serve your readers with the most up-to-date information available? Thank you. Drsavard (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:The problem is that many of the edits Drsavard proposed removed material that was more neutral with regard to HPV testing, and put in material favoring HPV testing. Some of their edits were highly selective in what portions of the source they presented (only representing the pro-HPV testing side). While HPV testing has been shown to be useful in some cases, its utility in general cervical cancer screening is unproven. Since Drsavard consulted for QIAGEN (parent company of the makers of the HPV test), there seemed to be a potential COI.

:I am preparing response to their more recent comments, just took a while to get some references, sorry for the delay. Zodon (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Gryffindor and myself are currently in an edit war. He or she was added several images to the KylieX2008 article. Because of the minimal content of the article, I have explained to him or her that numerous images should relate to the content (body text) whether than the subject. We are currently at two reverts each. I feel that him or her are taking this rather personally because it is their own work. In the External Links section, there is a link to the images in Wiki Commons and I think that is sufficient than slapping them in the article. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:All images pertain to the article itself. Please refer to Talk:KylieX2008#adding_images_to_this_article. You have numerously reverted edits of other users already as if you had some kind of monopoly on this topic. Gryffindor 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting here just for transparency. The creator and major editor of Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, {{user|Dagsy}}, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARedvers&diff=229179512&oldid=229026130 claims] to be the marketing manager of Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. As such, I have marked this article as a potential conflict of interest. I also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martinus_Nijhoff_Publishers&diff=228988563&oldid=228987567 reduced the linkspam] and the sales language and catalogue of books available to buy. This was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martinus_Nijhoff_Publishers&diff=229181225&oldid=228988563 reverted] by Dagsy and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martinus_Nijhoff_Publishers&diff=229184859&oldid=229181532 re-reverted] by me. I have contacted Dagsy (and his IP) on their userpages and left a uw-coi notice. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 07:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone review [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Munson&diff=229142747&oldid=205047640 these removals] by the subject of the abovelinked article? I usually keep an eye on the article but wanted some outside input to this. Skomorokh 10:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:Did you ask him why? MER-C 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

::I bother Chuck far too often :) I was hoping someone else could look into it. Skomorokh 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chuck0&diff=prev&oldid=229255641 left a note] for the subject, asking him why he called it 'removing inaccurate information.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{Puellanivis}} - She has a very real conflcit of interest in this topic as evidenced by her zealous promotion of her own personal ideology and uncivil behavior. The issue at hand was weather or not the definition of "Men who Have sex with men" includes transgender women (which, as the term has been used, can be anyone from a cross dresser to a post-op transsexual woman). I looked at a variety of sources and cited a variety of sources in a RfC on that article's talk page. They all either say explicitly that transgender women are msm, that we are considered along side msm, or they imply that we are MSM In response she has swore at me in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Puellanivis&action=history comments of the revision history of her talk page.] I gnored this transgression and continued to deal with her from the standpoint of good faith and reason. Then she, wrote "I'm sorry, but my "biological gender" is female. There is no doubt in my mind that I had insufficient androgens during my natal period and came out under-virilized. When the brain (evidenced by my parents that I never acted correctly as a "boy") and the external body are in conflict... personally, I can't, and I don't know why you could, say that the external body wins out." It looks to me that she is hung up on issues of her own personal identity, her gender identity and presentation. She is unable to see how the subject of this article has no bearing on that. More importantly that her own personal feelings should have no bearing on it. Please help me to show her that her behavior on this matter is out of bounds. She is a good editor who I have historically agreed with more than I disagreed with. Hfarmer (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the COI tag to added to the article, on account of the fact that the editor in question isn't a major editor and there are plenty of other editors involved. As for the COI matter, the guideline says:
• COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups.
• I don't see what interest is being promoted. This appears to be more about WP:NOR, in that the editor is using personal experience rather than reliable sources as the guide for what to include or exclude. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be very grateful if an experienced moderator / editor could intervene on the article - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Please refer to the exchanges under the section entitled 'Racist Quotes' on the discussion page, and the ensuing entries at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

I feel that the user User:PrinceOfCanada is way too closely involved in Monarchy-related articles, even going as far as to admit "...I'm a staunch Monarchist" on their User page.

With thanks in advance. Labcoat (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:I'm anything but a moderator (some would say a provocateur), but just wanted to comment that this doesn't look like COI but rather POV - it would only be COI if the Prince himself, or his office/agents, were the "guilty party". Lots of editors have POV orientations of one kind or another; COI is when the person being writing about is doing the writing, no?Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::Correct, unless the user was related to (or employed by) the subject, I don't see a COI. It's POV. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Thanks for the replies. How could I then request the intervention of an experienced and uninvolved moderator to make some kind of judgment? Labcoat (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{UserSummary|ThomasDeLongeJr}} appears to be {{article|Tom DeLonge}}. Recently created {{article|Blink Me}} (since deleted) about forthcoming Blink-182 reunion video. – ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Toddfast}} claims to be "someone involved with zembly" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zembly&diff=prev&oldid=229914771]. Appears to be Todd Fast. Given uw-coi warning on 25 July.
• {{userlinks|66.125.85.186 }} Whois shows this to be the ip of Todd A Fast

• {{article|Java Native Access‎ }} These editors added a History section on 5 August, containing detailed information about the contributions of some of the programmers involved in JNA, including Todd Fast. I've moved this section to talk for discussion.
• {{article|Zembly}} article created by user:Toddfast about a product created by Todd Fast.

:Toddfast has continued editing Zembly, and added the section to Java Native Access, after being given a coi warning for his creation of Zembly. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

{{userlinks|Sonicmanage}} and {{userlinks|Mikesonic}} have created/edited Sonic Management and articles about artists of that label: AM Radio (band), Kevin Ridel, Chris Pierce. BNutzer (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

{{userlinks|GameIndustryMap}} has created an article titled {{article|Game Industry Map}}. The article is currently nominated for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{article|Alwyn Scott}}
• {{user|Alwyncscott}}

I believe this article violates conflict of interest. It is autobiographical and its subject / author has chosen to eliminate factual edits that are true but may undermine his ability to use the page to promote himself. Example: I add that he was involved in a costly divorce, which is true. He undoes it.

Bookseven (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As suggested at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Alphabiotics I'm referring this article and user here.

{{article|Alphabiotics}}

{{userlinks|Trisfb}}

The users contributions include signing his preferred version of article Developmental Alphabioticist Tristram Forrest-Brown wrote this wikipedia page entry. Visit his page at www.alphabiotics.co.uk [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alphabiotics&diff=next&oldid=228498329] all of the users edits are to this article, and he has not engaged in dialogue with other editors as requested on his talk page -Hunting dog (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:after talking with trisfb, and helping him improve the article, i think that this is no longer a problem as such, the article is on its way to being much more neutral and balanced--Jac16888 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Warning someone who has vandalized your user page does not violate WP:COI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC) }}

I'll make this short and sweet. I revert vandalism here at en.wp, and I wanted to ask a quick question: If a user vandalises your personal userpage, can it be seen as a Conflict of Interest if the user whose page was vandalised issues vandal warnings against the perpetrator? Should another user be asked to do this? Thanks. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

: I see no problem with that. That type of COI is not the type that the Wikipedia guideline discusses, where an editor stands to gain financially or similarly based on the content of an article. So no worries. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{article|NebuAd}}
• {{user|Funchords}}

Disclosure and Summary

I am the Director of Marketing at NebuAd. Given Wikipedia’s standards and conflict of interest guidelines, we were wondering if an editor would be willing to delete Funchords’ edits to the NebuAd article.

Background

Funchords is Robb Topolski. Mr. Topolski is a [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/445/863 consultant for two Washington DC-based lobbying groups]: Free Press and Public Knowledge.

On behalf of these two lobbying groups, Mr. Topolski [http://funchords.livejournal.com/tag/nebuad#funchords211607 wrote a report on NebuAd].

Conflict of Interest Concerns

Regardless of whether he is biased, Mr. Topolski’s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NebuAd&action=history 114 edits of the NebuAd article] constitute a conflict of interest based on the following COI examples:

• Financial benefit: As a consultant to the aforementioned lobbyists on matters related to NebuAd, Mr. Topolski may “derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing.”

• Close relationships: Mr. Topolski’s relationships with the aforementioned lobbyists on matters related to NebuAd may “involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.”

Request

Based on these conflicts and the editorial guidance in Wikipedia:FAQ/Business, we request that an editor consider deleting the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NebuAd&action=history 114 edits made by Funchords].

Edgar Waingortin (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:Please read WP:OUTING. Corvus cornix_talk 06:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

::Does not seem to be an outing issue. Funchords provides his full name on his userpage, and the above links are easily found via googling his name. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Additionally, Funchords makes this possible COI known on his userpage. He's one step ahead of Edgar here. -- Ned Scott 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this a little more, I'm not seeing any issue with Funchords. From his own talk page I even see him working with other editors about the article NebuAd. He's well involved with other editors, asking them for help and such, and the edits themselves seem fine. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:I don't see any policy violations in the current article, except that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NebuAd&diff=231546148&oldid=231301499 the table] showing which staff members from Claria are now employed at NebuAd may violate WP:Synthesis. I've already expressed an opinion to that effect on the article Talk. (I believe it violates SYN but not BLP). Edgar Waingortin of the NebuAd company has been carefully respecting the WP:COI guideline thus far. In fact, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=220016016 previously posted] at this noticeboard to explain his own role and his concerns about the article. Basically, he asked us to follow our own policy. Funchords is an editor who in real life opposes NebuAd's approach to modifying internet traffic, but most of the time he has been careful to stay within Wikipedia policy. I'd be happier if the abovementioned table were removed, but except for that, I think we are OK. I encourage the readers of this report to add NebuAd to their watchlist. It would also help to ensure the article's neutrality if we had more regular editors who are not COI-affected working on it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Speedied as a redirect to a deleted article by Tanthalas39. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC) }}

International House of Reiki is a new created article. The main intention appears to be advertisement and promotion of Reiki services of one company. I consider this unfair use of Wikipedia and vote for deletion. --Aaxxll (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Deleted and salted. MER-C 10:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)}}

User:Em Naswood has created the article Emi (Native American singer) about himself, with no citations, written in a biased way, containing superfluous non-notable content [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emi_%28Native_American_singer%29&diff=230710239&oldid=230709735 like this]. I've tried to remove unencyclopaedic content, tagged the article with coi, neutral and unverified tags, and contacted the user on his talk page and the article's talk page with regard to the issues, but no reply. The user keeps removing the tags from the page; I don't want to edit war, so I thought you guys could take a look! Cheers - Toon⁰⁵ 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

: As a side note to the above - I couldn't find any reliable sources to back up any of the claims to notability made so have nominated that article and Em (EP) for deletion at Afd (an IP also tried to remove the Afd tag) -Hunting dog (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have written a draft of an article about Allsport GPS. I was wondering if someone here could help me get this article ready to be published on Wikipedia. I am worried about the article having a biased tone, since I am affiliated with the parent company. Any help in cleaning it up would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia's Business FAQ suggested that I first get assistance to publish an article, since I have a conflict of interest. My draft is currently residing here: User:Ek_elwing/myarticle Thank you! --Emma K (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:Commented there. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Blocked, indefinitely. MER-C 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)}}

{{user|Fredfickle}} keeps removing sourced, wikified information on the Brad Mehldau article and replacing it with unsourced text dump. I requested that he not do so, but he has repeated it twice now, the third time the edit summary said he is doing it for Brad Mehldau. I have given him a uw-v3 warning and reverted yet again, and pointed him to WP:COI. Corvus cornix_talk 06:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just issued Fredfickle a uw-v4 warning. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:Returned as {{user|Hthrkrns}}, all sockpuppets blocked indef. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredfickle. MER-C 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{la|Esther Hicks}}
• {{user|Ahnalira}}
• {{user|MoriahBaron}}
• {{user|Gacuster}}

{{article|Esther Hicks}} - User:Ahnalira is the webmaster for Esther's web site. They have been edit warring and removing anything other than Esther's official biography from the article. There are also about four newbie editors with a minimal grasp of WP policy. All joined very recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhimaji (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:I added article and user links to the above header. The three users I listed are new editors who started work since 1 August, and whose edit history seems entirely devoted to Hicks-related topics. A complex edit war is taking place, where some editors seem eager to show that Hicks played a role in the creation of The Secret (2006 film), while others (mostly the new ones who may have a COI) wanting to remove all mention of it. Even more surprising is that some editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esther_Hicks&diff=232186890&oldid=232180544 are removing] information taken directly from Esther Hicks' own web site. (It's hard to believe that anyone can be defamed by their own statements).

:The behavior of the COI-affected editors is so aggressive that I fear some admin action may have to be taken, if we can't persuade them to comply with the WP:COI guideline. Even if everyone were carefully observing the COI rules, there would still be the job of creating a neutral article. But I'm sure that's a doable task. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

::I would like to call particular attention to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esther_Hicks&diff=prev&oldid=228919306 diff link] where one of the editors says "Added the first name where only Hicks was written and clarified definition of what she does slightly. As webmaster of Abraham-Hicks Publications, these changes were requested of me by Esther Hicks." It appears to me that Esther Hicks is behind this recent activity acting using one or more surrogates. My problem is not that they are editing but that 1) they are gutting the article beyond what makes any sense, and 2) have flat out said on the talk page that they do not have to discuss anything. Ninety percent of the edit warring going on at the article could be resolved if the parties would agree to discuss in good faith on the article talk page. Which is beginning to happen, slowly. So I hold out hope. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Update: Per this report all the editors listed above have been blocked for sockpuppetry by User:AGK. There was also an ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I have watched the events for the past few days from an outsider standpoint. I also enjoyed looking at everyones talk pages - some really interesting ones. After reading the last talk page, which was Ahnalira, it looks as if Bhmaji, Tmtoulouse, and Dayewalker are gloating and fringing on harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnalira] I look forward to a spirited and non biased solution to this page.--70.197.94.180 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::This IP editor above has no edits prior to tonight, as admitted in their first post here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Esther_Hicks&diff=prev&oldid=232432851]. It should be noted this anon IP user is making the exact same edits as blocked sockmaster Ahnalira, as seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ahnalira]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::As a person coming into this as purely coincidence, and a person who like anonymity and unbiased takes, I take offense to this. I merely stated that you three should also be looked at because of the tirade on Ahnalira. Quit the game playing and lets get down to a perfect page. Not looking to make friends, just a pure page we can all agree with.--70.196.44.49 (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::One mans tirade is another mans good advice. Which is what the information on the talk page was. If you are interested in helping with the article there are several outstanding points just waiting for feedback. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Kicking someone while they are down is not good advice.. Its a cheap shot and cowardly. Lets keep it clean. As I said on the other page, one day academia will look at wiki as a reliable source and not a laughing stock.--70.196.44.49 (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)IP, This is not the place for your accusations. This is the noticeboard for a user with a clear conflict of interest who was blocked coincidentally just before you showed up. If you'd like to discuss the article, take it to the talk page. If you'd like to discuss anything else, I'd suggest you get a wikipedia ID so you'll have a talk page, as your IP has changed since the beginning of your discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Waccolon has stated on my talk page that he is the subject of the article Willie Colón. He has been adding unsourced additions, as well as some peacock terms. He openly admits that he doesnt understand the full procedures re: wikipedia entries, but he states that the article is "his resume"... which might cause an issue. Just an FYI. I'll let him know about this post. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Article deleted via AfD. --MCB (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)}}

User:Vincebethel has been the primary editor for Vince Palamara; in fact, Vincebethel even claims to be Vince (see the comments for his user contribitions). This is getting a bit out of hand. Should he be allowed to edit his own biography in this manner? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:I was amused to see the section on his guitar playing. It seems to be mostly unverifiable (personal correspondence between the subject and others) and non-notable, e.g. playing guitar on cable access or YouTube is worth mentioning? --C S (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

::Much of his biography is unverifiable. He's not even a published author (unless you count his ebooks.) Is this something that would fall under "vanity"? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:::The article is now at AfD. Regardless of the COI issues as such, I don't believe the subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article. --MCB (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|BrentWiki2008}} - User has created what is probably an autobiography at Brent Littlefield and has removed "autobiography" and "notability" tags placed by two different editors. Only other edits consist of adding references to Brent Littlefield at Pollie Awards, American Association of Political Consultants, University of Maine, National Federation of Independent Business. Brent Littlefield doesn't necessarily need to be deleted (it's hard to tell at the moment), but the user's passion for self-promotion makes me doubtful about the validity of the notability expressed in the article and they won't engage on talk pages. Movingboxes (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• There's clearly some COI here, but that's not the article's biggest problem. I suspect this would fail AFD due to serious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NOT. It's only 1 day old, so I would give the article (and the author) a few days to see if any improvement can be done. If not, AfD is the place to get the community's consensus on it. Arakunem^Talk 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for the input. I was more concerned about the author's refusal to let any tags stay on the article, but it looks like multiple editors are looking at the article now and the problem will resolve itself however is best. Movingboxes (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{article|Idiomag}}Marginally notable website, created by single-use editor Idiogirl, written much like an advertisement.

Timestamp. MER-C 09:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|All COI affected pages deleted. MER-C 02:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Mgover77}} - created his own article about himself, {{article|Michael Governale}}, and created two articles on computer products, {{article|Flopsy The Dog}} and {{article|Giggles Computer Funtime for Baby}}, both in which he has been involved in making. MuZemike (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Governale. MER-C 10:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:Flopsy The Dog and Giggles Computer Funtime for Baby have both been tagged for speedy deletion (G11 - blatant advertising/spam). MuZemike (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::Both have been G11'd. MuZemike (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Shyambhagat was the creator and (except for minor editors) the maintainer of the entry on Rajeev Masand. As his user talk page admits, he is in fact Rajeev. The bio article is mainly a vanity piece. That being said, unlike Vince Palamara, Masand is a movie review critic for CNN-IBN, a television channel in India, so I don't think notability is an issue. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Masand. MER-C 09:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Not a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC) }}

• {{article|2012 Summer Olympics}}

PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE TO GO WITH THIS. There is some very suspicious (and racist) behavior by one (perhaps socketpuppetry) or two editors advocating terrorism of the July 2005 Bombings on this page. The admin has blocked content change. Please help. I am new to wiki and dont know how to fight them Do not let the terrorists win--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:I read the discussion page and left a message. Movingboxes (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::This is becoming tedious. Accusations of sockpuppetry are severe, not to mention completely unfounded in this case. Nor was my comment about finding a Polish editor racist; the user in question is self-described as Polish, and I felt that someone speaking to her in her native language would have more success at explaining the numerous Wikipedia policies she doesn't understand. The accusation of advocating terrorism is beneath contempt. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I'd say view it as closed here. Whatever this is (mainly content dispute), it's not remotely a COI issue. It has also been inappropriately raised at Wikiquette alerts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=233294803], and is now being addressed as a conduct matter at WP:ANI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree that this is not an issue that requires any COI investigation. There seems to be a consensus at ANI that this editor will be blocked if she continues in this vein. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

{{article|Irving Hexham}}

User:Irvinghexham User_talk:Irvinghexham

User has a clear conflict of interest in his numerous edits to Irving Hexham and his wife Karla Poewe (whose article he began) his edits are disruptive and he has removed templates and citation tags without discussion. Teapotgeorge (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This editor has also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics&diff=232819958&oldid=232311130 added his works] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics&diff=next&oldid=232821890 his wife's] to lists, and added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics&diff=next&oldid=232823428 fulsome praise of his wife's work], on Christian apologetics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:User has acknowledged his connections to the articles and does seem to be working with the community on the talk pages to maintain NPOV. Arakunem^Talk 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving Hexham writes: Actually, I did not think that my comment in the article "Christian Apologetis" was "fulsome praise", of my "wife's work." But, I can see how it can be interpreted in that way and agree that these comments needed to be deleted. They were placed there before I was conversant with the rules governing Wikipeadia.

As far as the charge of that I was involved in a "conflict of interest" goes when I edited my wife's page three things may be said:

First, I plead guilty to not reading Wikipeadia rules in the first place.

Second, Wikipedia guidelines state that a: "conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor ... in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." They also add "no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists" and "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias."

Therefore, it seems to me that while my tone may not have been "neutral" enough it was not my intention to "promote" my or Karla's "interests" in a way incompatible with the "the aim of Wikipedia." Rather, it was to inform readers, particularly students, about her research.

Thirdly, all of my recent edits were in response to requests for verifiable citations which I attempted to provide to avoid the charge of "original research or unverifiable claims."

Finally, I apologize for my misunderstanding and am trying to understand Wikipeadia rules so that I avoid such things in the future. Irving Hexham (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC) }}

• {{userlinks|AfreeUsername}} - This new user is adding {{db-spam}} CSD notices to articles relating to web hosting companies, after apparently having his/her own article (BurlyHost.com) deleted. Scjessey (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Another admin has undone all of this editor's remaining G11 tags, and I left a warning at User talk:AfreeUsername. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC) }}

• {{userlinks|neiln4}} – Neiln4 is apparently Neil Nickolds, a contributor to [http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/ Emporis.com] (a commercial real estate company), who has been linking external reports written under his byline as references in numerous articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snowhill&diff=prev&oldid=231963743 example diff, but see Contribs]. He has also been adding linkspam (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schweizer_Aircraft&diff=231914892&oldid=231903402 ref 14] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cessna&diff=231915145&oldid=231903499 ref 11]) from [http://www.patriot.uk.com Patriot Aviation], which he may work for. In all cases I’ve examined, none of these entries is properly used as a reference citation in their respective articles. He seems to have stopped adding material after he was notified that his Patriot Aviation article was deleted as advertising, but his contributions to these other articles needs to be cleaned up. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

::I've looked at this editor's contribution list, and it's disconcerting. I suggest that we remove *all* the links to Emporis.com that he added unless they are being used as references for actual statements in the article text. The Emporis pages are clogged with advertising and slow to load, so these links will not be a great loss. I'd welcome opinions from other editors. You can get the general idea if you just look at one or two of the Emporis pages. For example, open the last external link on M-Towers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I've removed all the links not already removed by Ahunt. That's basically all of Neiln4's edits this year; only his original Dec. 2007 edits were constructive. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{article|Terry Fugate-Wilcox}}
• {{article|Actual Art}}
• {{user|76.248.147.100}}
• {{user|99.12.242.53}} - adds info identifying as "I" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Fugate-Wilcox&diff=prev&oldid=229025045]
• {{user|99.184.131.222}} - identifies as uploader Fvlcrvm of [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SANA_MODEL_NOLYRS_copy_copy.jpg this image] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Actual_Art&diff=prev&oldid=229410842]
• {{user|Fvlcrvm}} - self-identified in Wikimedia as Tery Fulgate-Wilcox [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SANA_MODEL_NOLYRS_copy_copy.jpg] and later as Valerie Shakespeare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFvlcrvm&diff=233429194&oldid=233428432] - his wife.

A group of accounts with very similar edit summary style, some which have self-identified as Terry Fulgate-Wilcox. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:The article on Terry Fugate-Wilcox is well-organized, has lots of good images and is not too promotional. Actual Art seems to need work on organization but the exposition is clear enough. Does anyone see a serious problem with either of these? Is there any support for deletion? One unusual touch is that the woman in :Image:Weathering-wood-pc.jpg who is standing next to the wood sculpture is not fully dressed. There is no comment in the text about why this is appropriate or at all relevant to the art work (Image was uploaded by Fvlcrvm on August 20). EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::I passed them to WikiProject Visual arts, and some editors from there have much improved them since my report above. However, the COI editing is still an issue. Fvlcrvm just signed as Valerie Shakespeare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFvlcrvm&diff=233429194&oldid=233428432] who's an associate of Terry Fugate-Wilcox - his wife, in fact! - and founder of the Actual Art Foundation that sponsored his latest work. This is all a bit too close to home to be directly editing the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that I am married to Tery Fugate-Wilcox, but I am also very involved in the art world, with many galleries, on the committees of several museums, etc. The artworld is unique in that we do not consider other galleries to be competitors, often working with each other. Many artists that I exhibited also showed with other galleries, as well. I feel a strong kinship with many artists, regardless of who they show with. I have tried, (& will try harder) to write only factual material, chosen & written without bias. I should point out, however, that all writing about art is biased, in one way or another. All critics either like the work or find fault with it & that is OK, even with the artist. Many a great career was built on "negative" criticism. Jackson Pollack being a prime example. It even got so a favorable review by certain critics was the "kiss of death" for an artist.

I have to admit I think the work of Terry Fugate-Wilcox & all the Actual Artists is wonderful. But I honestly feel the same way about hundreds of other artists, as well. I love art. I can't help that. But I can write about it in an unbiased way & I do appreciate Wikipedia's need to keep their articles as unbiased as possible. Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

regardless of the gallery they exhibit with.

One more thing: Someone said there are "a group of accounts with very similar edit summary style, some which have self-identified as Terry Fulgate-Wilcox". I have only one account, "Fvlcrvm". That is the account I asked Terry to put the redirect for his own name on. I don't know who has the other accounts. Did they edit TFW too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvlcrvm (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I appreciate the fact that I am married to Tery Fugate-Wilcox, but

:We can forget everything after the "but". This close relationship to the subject means you should be following the WP:COI guidelines, which come down to saying you should help via the Talk page.

:I don't know who has the other accounts. Did they edit TFW too?

:Yes: click on the links provided at the top of this section. Looks to me like the same people editing without logging in: some actually identified themselves. For instance "added info & links & changed default search to last name only, since I am known both as Terry & Tery" is hardly open to doubt. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I already addressed that issue. Since my redirect from names that Tery Fugate-Wilcox actully uses & is known by kept being deleted, Tery did write a request that the redirects be allowed, since no one who knows him would find him under the spelling the Wikipedia article used.

As I said before, neither of us wrote or initiated the article. I only tried to add information that I thought would be of intertest to anyone looking up that name: specifically by adding photographs. I cannot understand how such photos could be added, except by us, since "entirely my own work" seems to be the main source of photography that is certain to avoid copyright issues. I guarantee you that if I discovered an article about myself or about my gallery, I would feel compelled to add any information I could to better that article, as well.

By the way, I am shocked to discover there is no article about Virginia Dwan or the famous Dwan Gallery of the '60's & '70's. She was a major force in the artworld & original patron of Minimalism, Conceptual Art, Earth/Environmental Art. I am not competent or knowledgeable enough to do it. Is there anyway I could put the suggestion out there for some one else to act on? 76.248.147.100 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the advice of Gordonofcartoon, used the link he/she offered & read closely the article on conflict of interest. The article was very specific about close relations taking great care to avoid bias. I noticed, however that there is no ban on editing by people close, even very close to the subject, provided they carefully maintain neutrality.

I have tried to write "Just the facts, ma'am" & hope I have succeeded. I appreciate any help or advice on that & will comply with any suggestions.76.248.147.100 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:"No ban" is not carte blanche to edit. Being the wife of the subject is about as major a conflict of interest as it gets, and it's hard to believe anyone could write/edit entirely neutrally about their spouse. The suggestion is, you comply with the WP:COI guidelines and help via the Talk page only.

:If you want to create an article about Virginia Dwan, that'd be great; there's no conflict of interest there. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I am not qualified to do so, (write an article about Dwan). I would, however like to propose it for someone more qualified. I suppose I could do a stub, maybe others would pick up on that.

You will notice that other editors wrote that the article on TFW was NOT too promotional. When I added references & images, I wrote NO OPINIONS whatsoever about the work, only telling the facts about public works done & uploading images of those works. I repeat: I see no conflict of interest there & other editors seem to agree. It is not as if this is a controvesial subject, with pros & cons being expressed. It is nothing more than a biography of an artist who did some public artworks; what they were, where they were & what was written about them. That information could be added by anyone who knows the information & has access to the images, without copyright issues... even the artist, himself.

As long as no promotional information, or expression of opinion is added, I see no COI, even in other articles I have noticed listed here. The guidelines do not restrict close friends/relatives to "help via the Talk page only". How could one upload any images for an article via a talk page?

I apologize for being so argumentative, but I set out to help Wikipedia, in good faith, & am still certain that I have done no wrong. I bettered the stub article with information, references & images...nothing more.

If Wikipedia really believes that is wrong, simply because of my unique position to have the facts, references & images, then I give up. I won't try to help any more, & believe me, your coverage of the artworld is woefully inadequate. You need all the help you can get! (See Jackson Pollock Robert Smithson Michael Heiser Jasper Johns ..I could go on all day.)Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:The best move would be for you to discuss it with WikiProject Visual arts, where they have a deal of experience in what formats and what participation role are appropriate - and certainly they're always interested in informed views on new arts articles that'd be worth creating. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts.

:I appreciate that you don't mean it to be promotional, but nevertheless the selection of material can be unconsciously promotional. I'm looking in particular at the section on the San Andreas Fault Sculpture Project. It's not a encyclopedic description of the work; it reads like a press release, bursting with superlatives to engage our enthusiasm (see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms)...

:The acre of concrete will weigh 65,000 tons & will loom 20 feet high, 188 feet wide & 232 feet long on the floor the desert. The sculpture will employ low-exothermic air-entrained concrete which has been tested as one of the most durable construction materials known to man. The concrete, seemingly impossible to violate will be torn apart by the power in the Earth, like a piece of tissue paper etc

:much of which comes verbatim from the promotional site [http://sanandreasfaultsculpture.web.officelive.com/default.aspx]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I went back to change that & saw that someone else had already changed it. Thank you for that too. I really am trying to get the hang of being a good Wikipedian, but as i mentioned before to another editor who helped a great deal with the references, I am just newly computer literate, at 64, so I appreciate all the help I can get. Thanks again, Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:I guess it's just an issue of "house style". Nothing at all wrong with promoting in a promotional context, but Wikipedia style needs to be lower-key. Also, as we can cross-reference to other articles, explanations can be terser because you can just link - say, to plate tectonics - rather than explaining from scratch. Still, this is content talk, which really goes on the Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|article deleted therefore problem solved--Jac16888 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Teancum}} has an apparent conflict of interest in the article {{article|Star wars battlefront conversion pack}}. The lead of the article reads as follows: "It is being created by a team from the Gametoast community, led by Teancum." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_wars_battlefront_conversion_pack&oldid=233150004 diff]) MuZemike (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:The article doesn't show that this conversion pack has much notability, and unofficial conversions rarely are, have you considered simply afd'ing it? I can't see it surviving one--Jac16888 (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::Article has been prodded. If it's contested, (my guess is that it will be) then I will take it to AfD. MuZemike (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I temporarily blocked user:Richardcheese2 per the username policy, pending OTRS verification. Interestingly, the same user both claimed to be, and not to be, Richard Cheese, and was removing material from the Richard Cheese article. That user has not, apparently, provided verification. However, an unregistered user, User:71.102.69.42, has now taken up where the other user left off, editing the article and related pages about the person, and claiming to be that person.

WP:UN doesn't mention anything about anons making claims, only about user names, which is why I'm hesitant to block him. He's not adding contested information, and he's not currently making the exact same edits as the other account, although he has no current need to because the page currently reflects his preferred revision (which was done uncontroversially). But he posts frequent remarks in which he claims to be the person. I'm not sure if there's any conflict of interest exactly, at least not at this point, but what to do in this situation? Request verification from the anon user? Remove claims by the anon of being that person? Temp block the anon pending OTRS verification? Ignore it? Something else? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Assuming that he is who he claims to be: Obviously the potential for COI exists, but the edits both accounts have made have been to remove contentious information from a BLP, which is after all, policy, unless that info comes from a reliable source (i.e., more than the blogspace that was cited). Until that happens, I don't think we have a COI here. I do think that verifying the user's identity as you have suggested should be done, as this will determine the course of action regarding removal of the identity claims. If it turns out that the identity claim is false, then the WP:UN issue should be addressed, but the edits to the article still seem to be inline with BLP.Arakunem^Talk 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::Also, I know the onus is on the user to prove his identity, but perhaps it is not out of scope to initiate the contact in this case, since the user acknowledges much lack of understanding of Wikipedia procedures. And unless it's been fixed, the IP may never see the notice that he has a message on his talk page, so may not even know that we're waiting on him to contact OTRS. The email address he gave for his contact does match with the publicised email from the LATM website, so it would not require much in the way of digging to initiate that contact. Just a thought... Arakunem^Talk 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Yeah, it was less a COI concern than a what-to-do-in-this-situation concern. I've left messages on both his talk pages and another user has left a message on the article talk page regarding the process for providing verification. It's interesting too that the original account made post both claiming to be RC and suggesting that he wasn't. The latest impassioned post on the article talk page suggests it might be him after all. I guess we'll see. In the meantime, I haven't blocked the anon account; hopefully he'll just provide verification and we can move on. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|article deleted}}

Georgia Wildlife Resources Division was written by {{user|GAWRDpr}}, Obvious COI problem. Corvus cornix_talk 20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:problem has been solved, calling this resolved TravellingCari 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{user|Egbertus}}
• {{user|Visitor22}}

Affected articles:

• d'Alembert's paradox
• Navier–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness
• Navier–Stokes equations

(there are very long discussion on all these pages...)

Last year, the first article started being edited extensively by User:Visitor22 (see also User:Visitor222). This account admitted to being one of the authors of a paper by Hoffman and Johnson (Hoffman in particular), which featured heavily in these edits. This paper in its current form (as it is not yet published, see below) proposes a resolution to the paradox that is at odds with the mainstream view. There are not yet any citations or references to this paper except by the authors who are also including it in a book manuscript.

These edits were questioned by one editor who pointed out some issues with them. Later, another editor removed them and explained his problem with the edits on the talk page. Thus a dialogue was started between Visitor22 (Hoffman) and this last editor. While the discussion got somewhat technical on the merits of the paper, the resulting conclusion of this editor was that the work did not satisfy Wikipedia's policies requiring reliable sources that would demonstrate this is a significant view or one even deserving of a little mention. At this point, User:Egbertus appeared, who argued for inclusion of this material. Other editors were asked to comment, so I (and something like 4 other editors) made our comments. We agreed that the sourcing was not adequate. In fact, the paper does not appear to have even passed through a final acceptance yet, and the initial acceptance letter from the editor states that the language must be made less pompous and the claims should be weakened so that only a possible resolution to the paradox is proposed. I know this because the senior author has made this material availabe on his website (see Talk:Navier–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Removed_section_.22Proposed_resolutions.22). At this point, Egbertus has traveled to several other Wikipedia pages, trying to insert mentions of this work.

Currently d'Alembert's paradox does not mention the work (as its inclusion was reverted by me and others), but Egbertus has been carefully crafting it to cast doubt on the mainstream view. It is clear from comments from other knowledagble editors in the subject and indeed the referee reports on the senior author's website, that there is virtually no doubt of the mainstream view in the fluid mechanics community. Nonetheless Egbertus refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia policy, stating that he believes Wikipedia needs to discuss frontier knowledge rather than relying on second-hand information.

Egbertus has been challenged several times to clarify his relation to the authors. Indeed, when I commented that I wondered if Hoffman knew what was going on here, Visitor22 showed up very quickly to make a comment. Egbertus has refused to answer or deny charges of COI. It is obvious s/he has a lot invested in promoting this work. Egbertus has been notified of the COI policy (but again, I doubt careful attention was paid to it). Can someone with some official standing here, e.g. an admin, warn this user to stop pushing this work on Wikipedia? I have better things to do than keep an eye on this person. --C S (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have put forward my arguments at length on the talk pages, and do not repeat them here. I understand now that WP is not for scientists with first hand expertize, but for some other competence, maybe expert competence on the rules of WP as exercised by CS.

:I am very surprised and certainly view WP very differently now than before. The d'Alembert article was a complete mess before Visitor22 entered, and I suppose the article will now be reverted to mess again. I understand that some people do not like the present version, even without any ref to HJ, because it tells a truth which is not so impressive. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I have learned something.Egbertus (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

::When I pointed Egbertus towards the possibilities of a conflict of interest for the first time, Egbertus initial response was in terms of "our interests", see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEgbertus&diff=230024812&oldid=230023354 this diff]. Which response was altered shortly afterwards. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Crowsnest has rewritten the article opening to the new resolution proposed by HJ, without any reference to HJ. This is not science

but just corrupt politics. Is there nobody on WP who does not like things like this? The various versions of the WP article are presented on the book web page [http://www.nada.kth.se/~jhoffman/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Dalembert.Wiki] and show the coordinated effort by a group of wiki editors

including CS and Crowsnest to suppress information and delete HJ from the WP world. It seems they have succeeded, but there are other

worlds.Egbertus (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:I understand this is an admittance that you are intimately related to Hoffman & Johnson, and that you have a conflict of interest.

:You are of course free to believe that Wikipedia and the fluid mechanics community are conspiracing against you. But perhaps it is more effective — if you want to get your research published and discover new routes to the resolution of scientific problems — to consider the given critique and remarks with an open mind: there may be something of help and value in it. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I note with satisfaction that you are tilting towards the new resolution, and expect that you put in the proper references to

the work by HJ. Yes, I try to have an open mind and hope that you have that as well. I think we share a common interest

in advancing science and the way science is presented to a general audience, although I will choose other channels

than WP. Best Egbertus (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

:It is of interest that [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Alembertsches_Paradoxon the German Wikipedia's article] on d'Alembert's paradox continues to celebrate the wonderful success of Hoffman and Johnson in solving the problem. On [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%27Alembertsches_Paradoxon&diff=28869598&oldid=28350100 March 8, 2007] an IP editor added an external link to their article with the title, "Finally: resolution of d'Alembert's Paradox". (That was the only edit on de.wiki by this IP). Unfortunately that article's Talk page is blank. I wonder if the German wiki has their own conflict of interest noticeboard? EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have an obligation to delete HJ completely from WP, including the German version. Go ahead EdJohnston. Crowsnest raises the possibility of a conspiracy against HJ behind the complete deletion of any ref. to their work, but does not deny that this is actually what goes on.

Well, well.Egbertus (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:As indicated by Egbertus in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANavier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&diff=232103872&oldid=232102943 this diff], "...I change to Knol...", a new-written article appeared [http://knol.google.com/k/claes-johnson/dalemberts-paradox/yvfu3xg7d7wt/2#view on D'Alembert's paradox at Knol]. It is written by Claes Johnson, and gives Johan Hoffman as co-author. Simultaneous (within minutes) with the appearance of the new article on Knol, Egbertus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%27Alembert%27s_paradox&diff=234733377&oldid=232995865 added an external link] to the d'Alembert's paradox article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Crowsnest plays detective, but should better concentrate on putting together a comprehensible article on d'Alembert's paradox. After revision

by Crowsnest it is a hopeless mess without conclusion and information value. What is a reader of this article supposed to get out from the concluding sentence: ..."resolutions are still lacking, but might be found using the mechanisms proposed by Prandtl (thin viscous boundary layers), Birkhoff (inviscid flow instability) or combinations thereof". Is WP a playgound for speculation by people who are not well informed and deliver nonsense?Egbertus (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

His main contributions have been two highly laudatory biographies of two rather obscure personalities: Edward_Mendelson, and P._W._Bill_Bailey_III. Practically the entire CV of Mendelson is on that page. Prof. Hugh also made Bill Bailey a "type designed" even though copying the fonts from some HP cartdriges in Metafont hardly qualifies one as a type designer. He did not list a single typeface designed by Bill Bailey.

So, Professor_Hugh likely is one of those individuals or he is closely associated with both of them. I'm requesting that his user page be tagged as such. His only contributions have been two very non-NPOV bio articles. VasileGaburici (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Edwin Freeman page was created by {{user|Efreeman.fcg}}. I'm strongly leaning towards nominating the article for AfD, since the only role this actor has ever played that had a name he's something like 13th billed. But I wanted feedback before doing so. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

{{User:TTUP}} - User:TTUP is going around to random pages and adding bibliographic entries to Texas Tech University Press publications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TTUP. The entries are in some cases relevant, and in other cases only tangentially relevant. This user's editing appears to be a form of advertising by this press.Verklempt (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• In no way were we trying to simply advertise our books. We felt that Wikipedia would be a good place to list reliable references for anybody interested in a particular field. However, we will be more careful about this in the future. Sorry. TTUP (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

::Your excuse seems disingenuous to me, given the fact that you're only adding references to your own employer's product line. This is evidence enough of spam advertising. If your employer's books turn out to be useful, they will be added in due course by other editors without your efforts.Verklempt (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If they're directly relevant, why not allow it? I would draw a stern line at anything not clearly relevant, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.104.91 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Standard link/user info and tracking URL follow. MER-C 09:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.ttup.ttu.edu

• {{spamlink|ttup.ttu.edu}}

Account: {{UserSummary|TTUP}}

• {{article|Vantage Communications}} - I suspect articles on clients of this company may need to be considered for COI issues and some potential spamminess. This morning, I came across changes by {{user|MarieLG}} at Asphalt plant that inserted some information about Intelleflex Corporation, which was also created by the same user. The changes involved adding to discussion of control involving RFID, and a reference to an obvious product release placed in a trade magazine. Some poking around suggested a connection with Vantage Communications, and with some investigation I turned up [http://blog.pr-vantage.com/?p=137 this blog entry] from earlier this month indicating that the company is "leveraging" Wikipedia to benefit its clients. Quote: "We use it as a platform to develop a simple, easy-to-understand definition of what our clients do and to give them a stronger online presence." While some of the connected articles are okay, I'm uncertain about the notability of Columbitech, for example, and Vantage itself. Other related users appear to be {{user|MIvantage}} (created Xelerated), {{user|Marshall.rachel}}, and probably others. I suggest some editors knowledgeable about COI take a look at these editors and at other Vantage clients (there aren't many listed on the website, but there's some) to ensure we don't have some surreptitious marketing going on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• {{User:Waynegerdes|Waynegerdes}} - A new user with the name "Waynegerdes" has made 10 edits so far and counting to the article Hypermiling. Some of these edits have already been reverted. The article, which was created beforehand, describes Wayne Gerdes, and Wayne Gerdes already redirects to this article. Though there is no evidence this user is really Wayne Gerdes who is behind this user, the account so far is a WP:SPA. Sebwite (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Update: User:Waynegerdes has now written on the talk page of Hypermiling, and admitted that is who he is. He signed his comment at the bottom: Wayne Gerdes - Owner/Admin of CleanMPG.com Sebwite (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

{{userlinks|HughTheA4AndFriends}} and {{article|Hugh The A4 and friends}}. The COI is self-explanatory. User also made an extraordinary (and blatantly uncivil) threat on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh The A4 and friends to delete all Wikipedia articles (this will be reported in other venues). MuZemike (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Article deleted; user page fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)}}

• {{la|Indian Society for Trenchless Technology}}
• {{la|User:Niranjanswarup}} -- promotional user page
• {{userlinks|Niranjanswarup}}

The creator and principal editor of this article, Niranjanswarup (read his user page - I'm tempted to create a "Best CV masquerading as a Wikipedia User page Award"), states that he is the Executive Director of the subject of the article. The article was once prodded, and the {{t1|prod}} removed by this editor. It may well be that the subject is notable enough, but this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:If a COI-affected editor creates an article that is informative, neutral and well-sourced we usually don't mind. The problem is that such an editor is more likely to write a promotional and unbalanced article. That's what seems to have happened here. I suggest that you nominate this article for WP:AFD. We already have an article on Trenchless technology that seems worthwhile, but this Indian Society does not seem to have inspired any full-length articles in any reliable sources. It's notability can't be shown. When I Googled I only saw a few passing mentions, and one press release. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::Added WP:PROD. Since the creator of the article has been recently active, we will soon know if he can come up with any reliable sources. User:Niranjanswarup has been notified of this WP:COIN discussion but has not yet responded. I agree that the promotional nature of his User page is also a concern. If he responds here we can discuss that with him as well. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Dear All, First I would like to mention that the remarks on the page had asked that if I was the creator of this page I should not take offence and edit the text to address the concerns and remove the deletion notice. Was the webmaster required to edit that comment & I understood it incorrectly? I am sorry if that is the case. Regarding the promotional nature as has been indicated, it is clarified hat Indian Society for Trenchless Technology is a not-for-profit organization promoting Trenchless Technology in India. There are numorous Trechless projects under execution in India presently. Government of India is executing a complete project mission titled Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) which is using Trenchless in a major way in 63 cities across India. Total proposed investment in this mission is exceeding US$ 28 billion. (http://jnnurm.nic.in/) In addition the Gas Transmission and distribution company GAIL India Limited is Investing US$ 50 billion in major pipelines. (http://www.gail.nic.in/homepage/homenew.htm) In addition to these there are several other oil & gas companies developing their infrastructure where they require such technology. Telecom sector is another user sector where a major investment is being made. To verify the need one can google jnnurm/jnurm or 'trenchless in India'. The results would speak for themselves. With such huge demand it is natural that WP should provide information about Indian Society for Trenchless Technology to its visitor.(Niranjanswarup) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Really you should find press accounts of these activities that you can add to the article. If we don't see legitimate references there, the article may wind up being deleted. Even if trenchless technology is being used, according to your personal knowledge, we need to see an extremely specific URL so that it can be confirmed. A web site like http://jnnurm.nic.in is not very persuasive unless you tell us what page to look at. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|1=No article => no problem. MER-C 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Hguols}} created an article of a computer game titled {{article|Diadem of Maunstraut}}. The user made the game himself/herself as shown in a posting on a forum [http://agetec.yuku.com/topic/2414 here]. This was discovered during a relisted AfD discussion for said article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diadem of Maunstraut). MuZemike (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|per Travellingcari Arakunem^Talk 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

{{Article|Cimbali}} -- created by someone from the company, using the company name so not hiding it, first edit summary says (Cimbali page upload). Doug Weller (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:user is blocked as a spam user name TravellingCari 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|per below Arakunem^Talk 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

• {{article|Casella Waste Systems}}
• {{userlinks|MichaelCasella}}
• {{userlinks|208.254.40.129}}

Clear COI, new account likely previously editing as the IP who was also repeatedly inserting copyvio PR spam and deleting without explanation. User welcomed and warned, but worth keeping an eye on if someone has the time today. TravellingCari 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:The article seems neutral and not promotional now, last edit on the 27th. Arakunem^Talk 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Article speedied as below Arakunem^Talk 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Metznblitz}} created the article {{article|Merchant Empires}} who is also the creator of the online game itself as well as an admin on the game's forum [http://www.advancedpowers.com/forum/ here]. User has declined both a speedy deletion of the article (per G7) and a prod; the article is currently being AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merchant Empires. MuZemike (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i am not the creator of this game but a player since 2000 actually playing it

I am not an admin of this game and / or forum game, just an old player helping to

create an guide for new players at [http://www.advancedpowers.com/wiki wiki document] and

well seems that i dont got "lucky" trying get an article about this game here as is

Ogame article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metznblitz (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:Article has been speedily deleted per G12 (blatant copyright infringement). MuZemike (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|per my below comments Arakunem^Talk 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

• {{article|Christopher George Kennedy}} has recently been significantly revised by {{userlinks|Communications MMPI}}, the name of the company of which Kennedy is President. Some of the additions are OK, some not. Rather than revert, I've done some cleanup and NPOV work, but more is needed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, I just realized I misread the dates. For "recently" read "quite a while ago". . . Still, another eye on the article would greatly be appreciated. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

::That user has been banned as a promotional-only account. Your edits to restore NPOV look good, though additional cleanup is needed as you say. I'll tag it as such, so it shows up in the appropriate categories for the little wikignomes to have at it. Arakunem^Talk 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

{{article|Hammes Company}} - Article is written by User:Hammes, whose sole contributions is to this article. I and other users have attempted to mark this page with {{Template:COI}}, but two users whose only edits at the time of this writing are at this article, User:66.162.118.90 and User:Fernandez315, are claiming that there's no conflict of interest apparent and are reverting any edits to add the COI tag to it. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Article is up for AFD now, for COI and notability concerns. If it survives, we can re-visit it to ensure that the editors abide by NPOV if they wish to continue editing it. Arakunem^Talk 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|WP:RBI as spam. Arakunem^Talk 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

Special:Contributions/Player82 spams with links to a (now deleted) blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:We don't really know there's a COI here, unless we can positively tie the user to the blog, company, etc, though I will invoke WP:DUCK here. In any case, his links are spammy and irrelevant (being dead links), so your revert was appropriate. If they continue, they should be reverted as spam links and the user warned appropriately. If they continue past there, WP:AIV is the place for the next escalation. Thanks for your vigilance!

{{resolved|No COI here Arakunem^Talk 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}}

As of this writing, both pages claim that Google has released a beta of Google Chrome for Windows. Haven't checked on who or when on the Google Chrome page, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebKit&diff=235911577&oldid=235908330 diff] says September 2 for the WebKit page, made by an anonymous IP address user, origin Deutsche Telekom. The Google Chrome Wikipedia page claims in the article that the release was made on September 2. Whoops! The page was just changed to say the release was made September 3, but the download is still not there on the Google Chrome web site.

However, at the time of this writing the Wikipedia article link to a [http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/features.html Google Chrome page] where the app release is supposedly to be found leads to a site where the download link for the software still points back to the site home page. My understanding is that Google Chrome is in fact due to be released later today, September 3. But it has not happened yet.

The Google Chrome page on Wikipedia also currently has a screengrab depicting Wikipedia displayed on Chrome running on Windows Vista. The source of the screengrab is unattributed. And there have been a flood of changes in the last few minutes while I was writing this post. Notice the dates of the footnote references.

These factors cause me to suspect that the two pages are being edited by persons with conflicts of interest preparing for the launch of Google Chrome later today. I discovered these page anomalies while researching for source materials on Google chrome because I had acquired information the product was scheduled for beta release today. Unfortunately, I lack the time to correct information that may well be accurate by the time I am done editing in any event.

But I suggest that these pages be critically examined for advertising and conflict of interest editing. I am not an enemy of either WebKit or Google Chrome. In fact I am genuinely interested in them and plan to take Chrome for a test drive as soon as it is released. However, I believe that events should not be described as having occurred when they have not yet happened. Wikipedi, ideally, is always accurate. Marbux (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:It was released on September 2 (September 3 in Australia). http://www.google.com/chrome and if that redirects to Google's home page then it must be cached on your side (I have it on my system already). Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::The link in the Wikipedia Chrome article is to the same URL you give. However, on that site, the software download link is on [http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/features.html?hl=en this page] and still links back to the same URL you link. I never visited that URL until a few hours ago and I have repeatedly refreshed the page in my browser (Firefox 2.x). Since reading your post, I have tried the same URL in Opera and get the same result. I had never before visited that site in Opera. I am not being referred to Google's home page. I apologize for my sloppy use of the phrase "home page." From here, the download link points back to the same URL you identify, which I more accurately should have referred to as the "product home page."

::I cannot verify either the information in the article or in your post using the link that you provide and that is used in the Wikipedia Chrome article as the source of the information that Chrome was released on September 2. When I view the page at the URL you provide, I see no mention that Chrome was released on September 2 and the download link for the software on the "further information" sub-page points back to the same URL you provide.

::I do not wish to question your word and do not rule out the possibility that there is some internet trait I have never heard of that might produce an ability to download the software from Australia from the same site that has no download when viewed from the U.S. However, the diff page I linked says in the pre-edit portion that the release was scheduled for September 3, not September 2. Likewise, the Webkit Wikipedia page states that the release happened on September 3, but the referencing footnotes, 31 and 32, point to sites that contain no such information.

::Cutting in the other direction, there is a [http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20080902_chrome.html Google press release] datedlined September 2 from Mountainview, California (same time zone as me), stating that the product was released. And there is a very short [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/google-chrome-now-live.html]post on Google's blog] dated September 2 stating that the product was released and pointing readers to the same URL we both are discussing to download it.

::All of this information cannot be accurate. The software either was released or was not and if released it was on a specific date. The Chrome article gives one date. The WebKit article gives another. I cannot definitively determine either whether or when the software was actually released with contradictory evidence and an inability to download the software from the URL we discuss or its subpages.

::However, I can state definitively that I cannot verify the accuracy of the relevant information given in either of the Wikipedia articles using the information sources referenced in them; I can find no download link for the software on the site all seem to agree is where it should be other than a link pointing back to the product home page of the same Chrome site; and the two Wikipedia articles give different dates for the same event.

::Given the contradictory relevant information and my inability to verify any of it, I would appreciate it if you might post the URL for the specific web page from which you downloaded the software. Something, perhaps more than one thing, needs fixed somewhere. :-) Marbux (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Not sure what you are talking about? Chrome was available since around 2008-09-02 18:50 UTC, when the page http://www.google.com/chrome/ (which includes a download link) was activated. Simply do a search on any news source and you will probably see most of them mentioning Chrome and the release date. Maybe you are confused by the fact that Google planned to release this on 3 Sep but ultimately released in earlier? SmilingBoy (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Viewed from here in Oregon, there is no download URL link on [http://www.google.com/chrome this page.] Sub-pages of the page at that URL have a download link title in the left sidebar, but the URL in that link points to http://www.google.com/chrome rather than to a download. But I am encountering more and more evidence that the software has in fact been released. My current guess is that there is a cache of pages on the internet somewhere between me and the Google server that has not been updated since before the launch, or another glitch between me and the page server. 24.20.204.191 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:This really should be discussed on the respective articles' talk pages. I looked through the editing history of both articles, and I don't see any evidence of a COI in either case (edits made by someone at Google corporate, for example). If there are, please provide the diffs showing the relationship between the editors and the topics. This looks more like a concern over the verifiability of the dates listed, which is really for the articles' editors to work out on the talk pages. Arakunem^Talk 14:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::: I'm now leaning in the direction of proclaiming a technical glitch outside Wikipedia that is showing different versions of some web pages with particular URLS in different regions of the world. See above. For some unkown reason I am still getting what is apparently a pre-Chrome launch version of those pages in my browsers that linked from the Download link title to the parent page rather than to a download.

:::I believe my original post here was justified by the fact that folks are getting different results from the same URL in different parts of the world. From here, along with the information that was on the WebKit page that the launch had been scheduled for September 3, the fact that there was no download at the URL linked from Wikipedia created the appearance to me that folks were prepping Wikipedia pages for a product launch that had not yet occurred, saying that the product had been launched when everything I could see said that it was not yet available and was not scheduled to be available at that time. I don't think it was a giant mental leap under the circumstances to suspect COI and advertising. I agree that there is no obvious COI issue now and that the remaining issues should be resolved on the relevant pages rather than here. 24.20.204.191 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Indeed. [http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39138-118.html Someone] even speculates that google has intentionally leaked the browser. Alternatively, they are making the link available at some locations but not in others. In any case, there is no reason to believe there is any COI here on Wikipedia, just confusion. Vesal (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::More than confusion. Folks in different regions of the globe aren't getting the same version of a page at the same URL. I still see no download on the page others are downloading from. Just a Download link title but the link is a URL for a page rather than a URI for a download. My guess is that it's a technical glitch on the internet that is delivering me a pre-product launch version of the page. Google has a Firefox service that loads pages from Google's page caches rather than from the URL location to get faster response times. I'm going to turn that on and see if the page I get is any different.

:::It's conceivable to me that Google is delivering the post-Chrome launch download page from its page cache service prior to going live on the real URL, to slow the Chrome download rate for awhile before putting the same content at the URL given in the Wikipedia articles. If I recall correctly, that Firefox service caches pages at different regional centers. Wouldn't surprise me if Google has a similar service for MSIE. I never looked. Tried the service for a few days, but turned it off because you get URLs in the browser location bar that are different from the source page's original URL. I create a lot of hyperlinks, and prefer linking to the source pages rather than to Google's cache of them.

:::Also might be that Comcast (my ISP) has cached pages and hasn't updated its cache of heavily used pages since before the Chrome product launch (Comcast does cache pages ). I've never knowingly experienced this before. Can't say that I know enough about the technical inner workings of the Internet to say there are no other technical possibilities to explain the problem. I just know that from here in Springfield, Oregon, I'm not getting the same page other folks are getting from the same URL. 24.20.204.191 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone with multiple ips and sockpuppet accounts has been editing this article, whoever is editing the page is either herself or some people paid on her behalf. These editors continuously add information from her website and external links to it, with the intend of promoting her website and book. They have been editing the Spanish wikipedia also.

--205.181.102.108 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

{{article|Wandsworth Parks Police}} - {{userlinks|TopCat666}} is a constable employed by Wandsworth Borough Council. Article talk has long running disputes over almost everything. User ignores reports from other councils used as references though clearly relevant, personally attacks (myself and others) and launches general accusations of POV pushing (though unable to tell me what my alleged POV is...). ninety:one 18:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User 91 has tried everything he can to get his personal view endorsed onto the article. He has reported TopCat666 to his employer, he has solicited other Wikipedians in a campaign against TopCat666. This is now the latest example, he has added numerous templates accusing various problems with the article and TopCat. He has been warned by admin for his POV's and accusing the Wandsworth Parks Police of breaking the law. Which he has done again. He appears to have made another username up, TOA63 in attempt to give Wikipedians the false impression this is someone independent. I suspect he is using both names because of only a three minute gap between two postings on the discussion page between the two usernames. He also falsely reports replies on the discussion page and is ignoring independent edits from admin Chrislk02, McGeddon, Timothy Titus and others. User 91 is bulling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying) in his edits and this should not be allowed to continue. I am actually quite new to Wiki as an editor if this needs to be forwarded to another area of Wiki, i.e. complaints etc please point me in the right direction. Wandsworth Police Officer (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:Total BS. I have never complained to Wandsworth council. I have done exactly what I am supposed to do in this situations, and gone to RfC and the relevant WikiProject. I was not 'warned by an admin', we reached consensus over a misunderstanding on my part. I brought the matter up on his talk page, it was most certainly not a warning, and it had nothing to do with him being an admin. Please, exactly what on earth does 'falsely reports replies on the discussion page' mean? And when have I been 'ignoring independent edits'? Accusing me of having a sock is one of the most serious accusations you could make on Wikipedia, and totally untrue. Just because there is more than one person who disagrees with you doesn't mean they are all socks. Feel free to go to WP:RCU and ask them to investigate. If your accusations weren't so widespead and serious, this would be amusing. ninety:one 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::Did you report TopCat666 to his employer? That is an entirely unacceptable action. Corvus cornix_talk 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::absolutely not, though it's an allegation i've now had thrown at me twice. the reactions of the various wandsworth officers have been disappointing (not least the wild accusation of sockpuppetry above), but not something i could complain about to the council. ninety:one 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|per below Arakunem^Talk 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)}}

It's back, it's been here and just about all over the wiki before. New [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Real_Life_Ministries&curid=16122109&diff=235863951&oldid=235863745 COI allegations]. I'm unfamiliar with the org outside the March shitstorm here that resulted in the protection of the article. Don't have a ton of wiki time to devote to it. It definitely needs an eye if someone can help. TravellingCari 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Oh jeez.... *rolls up sleeves* Arakunem^Talk 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Peace seems to be restored. All sides express a desire to not edit war and stay within POV and COI guidelines. Arakunem^Talk 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Created by {{user|Tmtmanagement}} with a great deal of editing by {{user|Simpleelissa}}. Besides the conflict of interest and bad article title, it's teeming with tags. Corvus cornix_talk 00:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking back into the edits of two users, who keep arguing with other contributors to various wiki articles on southern topics (states, cities, govt) in the American Civil War. They carry on edit wars, and work as a pair, effectively blocking normative contributions, and then harrasing contributors to back off or abandon articles.

User:JimWae

User:North Shoreman

The conflict of interest for us as Americans in the American Civil War pages lies in the fact that these pages should simply contain historical accounts of what was a two-sided war, treated in an academic way. These two editors have been tweaking southern articles with questionable POV material and views. Their user profiles indicate they are from New York and Ohio respectively. Given this particular topic, that can represent a COI. Of course where a user is from is not usually a problem, but in this case it can be. I caught wind of this last year with harrassment about a page I originated and created:

Winchester in the American Civil War - attempts to insert Lincoln quotes, having nothing to do with this topic

And then caught major flak when I added a secession date (small edit) in this page

Confederate States of America - deletion of secesion dates for Arizona, followed by additions of what Lincoln is doing

Whereupon I found these two users also ganging up on other users in such pages as these:

Declaration of Independence - trying to cite Lincoln as the most notable publicizer of this document

Articles of Confederation - threatening and ganging up on various contributors

Generally I have moved on with other things I'm working on, but eventually these users will need to be dealt with in some way. I have made many contributions to Wiki, and plan many more Civil War topics and pages. I don't want these two stomping on top of this topic and the legitimate task force users out there who are diligently working in this topic area.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Grayghost01 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:This accusation has very little bases in reality. I have several articles on my watchlist to which JimWae and North Shoreman are regular contributors. Rather than inserting POV into the articles, what I've seen in their edits would more accurately be characterized as insisting on reliable sources for dubious assertions. Because they occasionally deal with some other editors with hard-core POVs, the discussions are sometimes contentious. One small indication of the real bases for the accusation can be seen in the phrase Grayghost01 used [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Declaration_of_Independence&diff=235123270&oldid=234209855 here]: was first alerted to this quite awhile back with an out-of-the-blue edit to my Winchester in the American Civil War page. (emphasis added). Seems the problem may be more mistaken sense of ownership. older ≠ wiser 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

::You will need to dig a bit deeper on this one. "Ownership" of the article is not the issue at hand, and I have zero issues with contributions from all wiki contributors. Like the majority of us I, too, "watch" pages I've created or contributed to, mainly to help monitor either vandalism or contributions which need fixing up, or checking for quality. The issue is that the American Civil War envokes strong feelings and POV's. I was first attracted to Wiki when reading on this topic. Back then, much to my dismay, I found serious POV problems in some of the articles. As a former professional military instructor, I have extensive experience writing curriculum, including Civil War topics for the USMC. I understand thoroughly the difference between historical documentation, analysis, and facts, compared to "blogging" that I've seen in some of these articles. The aforementioned users, without a doubt, have some good contributions to Wiki. However, they have a natural conflict of interest, and their obsession on editing articles which cover Confederate topics in particular has led to the banning of well known historical facts, which just so happen to conflict with their POV. Generally, they have a view of only allowing reference to historians with either a Northern view of the war, or a view in alignement with their POV. So, in the name of good reference work, a POV or conflict of interest can be easily meted out, all very disguised. I have asked these folks to be a little less hardlined in their POV, given their COI, but to no avail. Finally, the moniker "gray ghost" is within the bounds of individuality allowed by wiki, and keeping with proper respect for diversity. Similar monikers such as "north shoreman" are veined in the same way. Seeing how that point has alluded the commenters here, shows the systemic nature of only seeing things one way. In conclusion, references such as the famous "Confederate Military History" or "Make Me a Map of the Valley" are valid historical references, and within the bounds of what wiki allows. The attempt to disclude these and others, by the aforementioned users, is, indeed, a COI and POV issue. Thank you. Grayghost01 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• If one reads Grayghost's user page, one can begin to see that it is HIS agenda that is the problem, and it is his stated agenda there that is evidence of any conflict of interest. He wants to insert Confederate POV as fact in articles, & it is HE who wants others to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimWae&diff=234203173&oldid=232588144 abandon further edits to the article]. He does not understand that articles are co-operative projects, & that articles on the Confederacy do not "belong to" its sympathizers. Other editors have repeatedly remarked that the date he wants to insert could very well find a place in the article, but each time he inserts it, he includes as purported fact other material that is clearly Confederate POV, while ignoring mention that the process of "secession" in Arizona on that date was simply a convention held by Confederate sympathizers who had not yet held any vote throughout the territory (thus, even less "process" than the other "secessions"). He repeatedly inserts claims that states seceded BECAUSE the North had "invaded" the South - which is not only unsourced editorial comment but flies in the face of the facts that they "seceded" before any movement of federal troops took place. --JimWae (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• I wish to add the remark here that the complainant did not do me the courtesy of notifying me that he had posted any complaint anywhere --JimWae (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand how any editing on Civil War articles can be a conflict of interest, unless someone is promoting a book, article, etc. Corvus cornix_talk 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who cares to read through the endless edit trail, you will find that I have contributed many well-composed pages, which are fairly good in overall style and content for good wiki quality. I do not cruise Civil War pages to insert blogging-nature POV of secession argumentation. The conflict of interest for this topic lies in revisionist editing, and Wiki has no category for reporting that. Given that these revisionist editors are mainly editing blog-materials into pages on southern states, locales, topics and articles of the ACW, it became apparant that the users doing all this were from Ohio and New York. Generally that's not an issue. But if a Russian was editing the Georgia website, constantly saying that Georgia is part of Russia, and a Georgian kept deleting out those edits, showing that Georgia is its own nation, one can see why home-of-record becomes a conflict of interest. Since the Older-Wiser user has the same conflict and POV, the outcome of his position is completely predictable. Nevertheless, I stand firmly on the principles that the various pages on southern states, topics and issues need to remain on-topic, straight-forward, and helpful for historical information. If two conflicting views need discussion, then a separate page should be created. In this case, those secession-reason oriented pages already DO exist, but the editors with the COI and POV are not content to keep the materials topically on those pages.

Grayghost01 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:The Russia-Georgia analogy falls totally apart -- Virgina is very clearly part of the United States. What you actually have is two Americans who spend a great deal of their time editing articles relating to arguably the most significant event in American history -- the Civil War. The professional historians working on the subject do not limt themselves to working only on matters within their own section and neither should wikipedia editors.

:Despite the fact that this is clearly a content issue, Grayghost has repeatedly accused the two subjects of this complaint to charges of vandalism such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:North_Shoreman&diff=236772548&oldid=235160374, this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:North_Shoreman&diff=236780809&oldid=236780657, this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JimWae&diff=236771875&oldid=235816176, and this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JimWae&diff=236772712&oldid=236771875. Like the frivolous vandalism charges, this complaint is equally frivolous. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not happy with his putting two user names on this talk page with the wording "Users with POV Violations, for further documenting:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 September 2008

{{article|Russ Nelson}} is the subject of a conflict of interest by User:Damiens.rf. He asked for a citation for something. Fine. I'm not editing my own article WP:COI (although I have added negative material about me; presumably not a conflict of interest), but I think it's reasonable for me to provide a citation when asked, no? He didn't like the citation I provided. It was a pointer to one of a series of interviews by Dr. Bernie Aboba initially published on the webzine Internaut.com (which domain name now points elsewhere). Damiens called it a blog and reverted it. Well, whatever. I provided a different citation to a bio published on the non-profit board of which I am a member: The Open Source Initiative, presumably a reliable source. Not according to Damiens; he reverted it. I asked him to stop reverting these citations and to allow someone else to express an opinion about their quality. He refused and continued to remove these citations. I found a citation to a O'Reilly book (again, a reliable source), a chapter of which I am an author, which details the cited material. He reverted THAT also. I claim that he has a conflict of interest since nothing makes him happy, and he is not willing to let it rest and give another Wikipedia editor a chance to chime in. Anybody agree? Disagree? RussNelson (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Though I think Damiens might be removing too much, he is correct that online biographies don't carry much weight unless they are published by a reliable source. According to our Wikipedia policies, Russ Nelson is in fact a COI-affected editor, while Damiens is not. If the argument is that Damiens is going against normal article policy, Russ should wait for the assistance of other uninvolved editors rather than reverting Damiens.

:Another concern is that there is not much sourced information to show the notability of Russ Nelson. Since he's played a long-time role in the open source movement, he has probably done more in actuality than what this article manages to say.

:The stuff about the reason for Russ Nelson leaving the presidency of OSI seems excessive; it could be summarized more briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(RussNelson added this comment about EdJohnston's first paragraph:)

::I agree with that .... but Damiens initiated this edit war by removing text. I think the text should remain until someone less emotionally involved than himself can edit the article. People have a bias against the unseen, so if Damiens removal is allowed to remain, it's likely to carry the day, and I think that, given his non-neutral edits (who removes three citations neutrally??), the text in question should remain for someone else to judge. The current state of affairs is that he hasn't removed the citations, so maybe he's seen the light? RussNelson (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::IMO some blogs should be considered reputable sources. I have not looked at internaut.com, so I have no opinion as to how reputable it is. But I am absolutely mystified how anyone could claim, in good faith, that an O'Reilly book is not a reputable source. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree that the O'Reilly book should be cited. My own concern is that the statements attributed to the O'Reilly source may not be backed up there, so it's not exactly a reference. E.g. to serve as evidence for the statement that he has been making his living from Open Source since the days of Freemacs. There is no independent third-party confirmation of that, from an article authored by Russ Nelson in an O'Reilly collection. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I would appreciate it if someone would ask Damiens.rf to stop removing this text and its citations, for the reasons I stated above. He simply REFUSES to abide by my request that someone else do this edit, and he CONTINUES to edit my pages even though he has an obvious (non-neutral) interest in my work. There are plenty of pages on wikipedia that need editing. The fact that he obsesses on me says that he should not edit the page describing me. I think this is within my rights to ask. RussNelson (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, I believe that I see a fundamental problem with WP:COI. Let's say that two wikipedia editors, one notable and editing using his real name, and another editing using a pseudonym, have a conflict over an edit, e.g. on Eric S. Raymond. The editor using a pseudonym has full freedom to make any edits to the bio page for the notable wikipedia editor. He is free to enforce Wikipedia policy down to the letter of the law, and the notable editor has no recourse other than whinging on the Talk: page. It may be that the wikipedia policy violations are nigglingly small. The notable editor can do nothing. So, my advice to notable people is: "Never edit wikipedia with your real name", which seems harmful to Wikipedia. Should the policy be changed so that editors who have conflicts with notable editors should be banned from editing their pages? Cuz Damiens.rf is still editing my bio page, to no good efffect.

I'm encouraged that other editors are moderating Damiens.rf evil influences (I'm WAY past assuming good faith on Damiens.rf's part). RussNelson (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:There's no such thing as a "notable editor". There is, indeed, information attributable to reliable, verifiable, independent sources. --Damiens.rf 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Russ, I am most disturbed by your failure to understand our policies, your sense of ownership, and your personal attacks, like this edit summary:

::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russ_Nelson&diff=prev&oldid=234624995 "What the fuck is wrong with you? LEAVE THIS REVERT FOR SOMEONE ELSE. IF YOU ARE RIGHT, THEY WILL AGREE WITH YOU."]

:: That's way over the top. You are the subject of the article, hence YOU are the one who has a COI. Just because Damiens.rf apparently has an editorial conflict with you doesn't mean (s)he has a COI in the Wikipedia sense, as described here.

:: You have simply fallen victim to Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences:

::

:: You need to calm down and explain things dispassionately at the talk page. If you aren't getting anywhere, maybe you don't understand our policies, so refrain from editing the actual article and seek help. Your edit warring and abuse of other editors (in this case Damiens.rf) will only get you into trouble. You are the one at a disadvantage here, except if you have a serious WP:BLP issue. Then you would need to share your concerns at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- Fyslee / talk 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I've explained things dispassionately. I understand that Damiens.rf a priori has no COI. I'm explaining that the evidence shows that he has developed an interest and cannot edit neutrally. There are plenty of Wikipedia editors and plenty of Wikipedia articles. I don't understand the lack of support I'm getting here. Why NOT suggest that Damiens.rf NOT make edits to my bio page? RussNelson (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Because that's not how things work here. You have no right to make such demands of other editors, but he might make such demands of you if your COI is interfering with you ability to neutrally edit the article, simply because you are the one with the COI. Of course he can't do that without getting support from some admins who can be convinced that the article needs protection from you, and that might be hard to get. Now if Damiens.rf breaks the rules here, then in some situations a topic block or article block can be used to protect the article, but that isn't the case here, or at least "yet". Until then you'll have to learn to hammer out a consensus together, or you'll have to seek more help. -- Fyslee / talk 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::What amount of evidence is needed to show that an editor has gained a level of interest in an article such that they can no longer edit neutrally? I can't be the only person with a stalker following him around and changing his edits. RussNelson (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Good question. Since you have the COI, look in the mirror and ask it.

:::::: You have also just accused a fellow editor of stalking and that can get you in trouble for making an uncivil personal attack, if that editor makes a formal complaint. That's multiple (but usually combined) policy violations at one time. Be more careful and assume good faith. If the charge is really true, you'd better have watertight evidence of bad faith and real wiki-stalking. I think it's good you have stopped editing the article and are confining your activities to suggestions on the talk page, but keep them civil. For example, this edit summary isn't good at all!:

::::::* "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russ_Nelson&diff=235027653&oldid=234971404 Stop. Obsessing. On. Me. Damiens.rf. Go. Away.]"

:::::: Get outside help from admins (not canvassing) if you need it. This happens to be a good place to do it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::One thing that would help here is a return to WP:AGF and a little patience with each other. RussNelson is obviously familiar with WP:COI and trying to abide by it, but that doesn’t mean he’s equally familiar with WP:V, WP:RS and any other policies and guidelines that may apply to this situation. Accordingly, Damien.rf might make the extra effort to further explain why one of Russ’ posts is problematic and cordially guide him to the relevant guideline so he can become better informed about it. I’ve been editing here two years and there’s lots I still don’t know simply because I haven’t yet had to deal with them – so no matter how long anyone has been active on Wikipedia, there’s always some aspect of it were still newbies about, and WP:BITE still applies. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: Excellent advice. Now play nice with each other. No more personal attacks. Figure out the rules and abide by them. -- Fyslee / talk 05:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::WP:AGF is a starting point, where you assume that someone is editing in good faith even though you think their edits are wrong. I believe that that assumption is refuted by the facts of Damiens.rf's editing of pages I've edited. I also simply do not believe that when two editors have had a conflict, that one editor should be able to get revenge on the other by editing his bio page and insisting that every Wikipedia policy be followed to the letter in spite of WP:IAR. That's something that should be against Wikipedia policy. Maybe it doesn't happen often, but it's happening in this case. Damiens.rf has even admitted to stalking me over to Freemacs, and he didn't edit my bio until THREE DAYS after an edit disagreement at Eric S. Raymond. I've only stopped editing my bio page because it's clear to me that 1) Damiens.rf will continue to edit it and 2) Y'all won't stop him. His obsession scares me. Did you see him asking me for a photo? Creepy! RussNelson (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: You don't seem to be following your own advice about AGF. Once an editor has edited across from another editor, their edits will often begin to appear in the editor's watchlist, and that's not wikistalking. He will naturally hold an eye on your actions, just as you do his, and as he does on the articles you have edited, and that too is accepted here. There is no such thing as private editing here. Your actions here are a matter of public record. Asking for a picture in this manner is perfectly normal, since we like to illustrate our articles. It's good you removed your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=235425504 outing], as that can get you banned in short order. Leave any conflicts with this or other editors at the door to Wikipedia. Don't bring them here. -- Fyslee / talk 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::Russ, you’ve been around the internet long enough to appreciate that it’s a limited form of communication in which motives and intentions are easily misread by presumption simply due to the lack of intonation and body language cues – that's one of the main reasons we have WP:AGF. FWIW, my recommendation would be that you both take a deep breath, forgive and – if not forget – ignore. Maybe later you can both sit down and enjoy a cup of tea over it, having recognized it for the mistaken impression it (probably) really is. If you really can’t come to terms, the more appropriate place to take your issue is to Requests for comment, as this is not really a COI issue at all. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: Just one comment. I didn't stalk you over to Freemacs, neither have I admitted doing so. Following the "admitted" link you provided, one can read my response about how I did reach that article: "There's a link from this article to the freemacs one, and that's probably how I got there." --Damiens.rf 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::: Oh, well, then since we're back to assuming good faith, then how about restoring the text you deleted from my bio page? Cuz I'm sure that you didn't mean to delete something with three reasonable citations -- one of which is a published interview with me from 1994 written by Dr. Bernie Aboba (which you mistakenly called a blog -- but I'm assuming good faith, so I'm sure it's an honest mistake on your part). It appears to be a blog because the webzine (Internaut.com) at which it was originally published was decommissioned. But of course you wouldn't know that, so it was a perfectly good faith deletion for you to make. But now that you know better -- and you have no undue interest in me and are editing neutrally, you'll restore the removed text. Right? RussNelson (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Hi, Nelson. I happy we're back to teamwork editing, and sorry if I failed to put myself gently in any prior occasion. About that published interview with you from 1994, I sincerely don't believe it classifies as a reliable source, at least not for the information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russ_Nelson&diff=232945013&oldid=232917875 you tried to source]: the piece of the article that said "He has been making a living from Open Source support ever since then". This is so because that website/webzine doesn't appear to have a reputation for fact checking. Indeed, the text makes no attempt to endorse what is said on the interview. It's just a copy of whatever you told them so, even written in the first person. The text is explicitly labeled "Russ Nelson, as told to Bernard Aboba" ([http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/internaut/crynwr.html sic]). It may be ok for a webzine to publish what you say about yourself, but Wikipedia is not interested in an article "Russ Nelson, as told to Wikipedia", that would be your version about your life and achievements. That's why we have policies requiring independent sources and some etiquette about writing articles about oneself.

:::::::::::: Please, understand that this is not to say that you an unreliable person. Or that you're known to lie at iterviews and the like. This is really not about you, but about Wikipedia's reputation. Anybody can edit the articles here, and we're one of the most visited websites in the Internet. Without that rules, we would be too vulnerable to self-promotion attacks (we're already a being targeted). I hope you understand it all. If not, please just let me know. --Damiens.rf 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::: I just noticed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russ_Nelson&diff=235594559&oldid=234892638 this] edit summary from you, that may indicate I'm still failing to get my message to you. I wholeheartedly repeat, this is not about you, Russ. Saying you're not about a reliable source about yourself is not the same as calling you a liar. --Damiens.rf 14:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::: You know nothing about the Religious Society of Friends, do you? Members of the RSoF in fact ARE reliable sources about themselves. If they aren't, they won't be members of the RSoF for long. If you doubt that, then you should go to the member's meeting (in this case [http://ottawa.quaker.ca/ Ottawa Monthly Meeting], and lay out your case for the person's unreliability, and ask for a Committee of Concern. If in fact, I have said anything which is not true, then I WILL BE KICKED OUT OF MY MEETING. THEY WILL DISOWN ME. This is a fate far, far worse than any benefit I might gain from misrepresentation. RussNelson (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Russ, what you seem to be saying is that we should accept someone's statements as verifiable because they have taken a religious oath to tell the truth. Surely you can see the practical problems with that as a policy, no? It's not a case of trusting you personally -- heck, I'd take your word for practically anything, having known you from Usenet since the 1980s and sharing many of your political and social opintions, but if you step back from what you seem to think is an attack on your personal veracity, and spend some time with WP:V and WP:RS, I think you'd understand why Wikipedia requires established, reliable, third-party sources with an editing or vetting process. --MCB (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the indent reset. Phwew. No, this is not about an attack on my personal veracity. It is an attack on the Religious Society of Friends. As a member, the Religious Society of Friends is responsible for what I say. The RSoF is definitely established (350 years old), reliable (anybody willing to argue this?), and a third-party to myself and wikipedia. I'm not asking you to believe me just because I'm a nice guy. (Oh, and Quakers don't swear; there is no "religious oath" going on here; swearing creates two levels of veracity) I'm asking you to trust that the Religious Society of Friends stands by my words, and is willing to investigate any accusations of false speaking on my part (of which there have been none). RussNelson (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::Russ, the disconnect here is that the Wikipedia standard for sourcing (listed here) can be summarized as Verifiability, not Truth. Thus while everything you say in an article may be 100% true and backed by the RSoF, the issue that causes the problem is is that of verification. Sources used in an article must be such that any person, with absolutely no familiarity with the subject, can very readily verify any fact stated therein. Thus, these sources tend to be books, news, even web sites if they are considered reliable. Don't look at the need for verification as "we don't trust you or RSoF so we want to see for ourselves", but rather as "In a site this big, a certain 'line in the sand' standard must be applied across the board or the admin staff goes bonkers from all the exceptions". In this case, the standard is published verification from a source that is in no way connected with the subject of the article. Arakunem^Talk 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The indent below matches up with :: You need to calm down. RussNelson (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::Okay, so we now have this dispute narrowed down to actually being a reliable sources issue. May I suggest you bring your particular points up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where this may best be resolved. And please keep up the AGF. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually, no, I still maintain that there is a problem with Wikipedia's COI policy. A and B have a fight, A has a bio page, B goes and edits in a picayune manner, B has a conflict of interest, A has NO recourse at all. The policy should say that if A and B have a conflict over an edit, then B should refrain from editing A's bio page. There's millions of pages; why should B be editing A's page? No reason to allow it. I expect that AT VERY LEAST, ONE PERSON should have ALREADY said to Damiens.rf "Don't edit Russ Nelson -- it's a WP:COI for you to be editing his bio three days after having a fight with him over Eric S. Raymond." Can you see how I would feel this is wicked unfair? Can you see how this breaks the assumption of good faith? RussNelson (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: Your definition of "interest" here is at odds with that covered by WP:COI. An "interest" is typically a real-world advantage so some kind. Were damiens.rf a business competitor seeking to diminish your community standing in order to gain a competitive advantage in some market, that would be a WP:COI: "annoying Russ Nelson" is not an "interest" of this sort. Furthermore, I should note that damiens.rf's edits to Eric S. Raymond were of exactly the same nature as his edits to Russ Nelson (removing sources not established as reliable), so it would appear evident that this isn't about you so much as it is about damiens.rf's notions of notability in biographies of free software personalities. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::: You cannot prove that damiens.rf is NOT a business competitor. Eric Raymond and I are members of an organization. That organization has enemies. damiens.rf and I have a disagreement over an edit to another notable member's bio and suddenly he's editing my bio. Do you see my point? Wikipedia allows psedonymous edits -- but that does not mean that all edits should be allowed by all users. Why is no one willing to ask him (or her) to "move along; edit somebody else's bio?" It only seems reasonable to me, to protect Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. There are millions of editors and millions of pages; why defend one editor's right to make questionable edits to one page? RussNelson (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Users recently active:

::* {{user|Csheppard1}}. Last edit Sept 10

::* {{user|Mschwartz311}}. Last edit Aug 29

::* {{user|64.119.97.178}}. Last edit Aug 28

• Users not recently active:

::* {{user|Maryland homework}}. Last edit Aug 19

::* {{user|Sullivanmovies}}. Last edit July 30

• Articles affected:

:* {{la|Kevin Sullivan (producer)}}

:* {{la|Anne of Green Gables}}

:* {{la|Anne of Green Gables (1985 film)}}

:* {{la|Anne of Avonlea (1987 film)}}

:* {{la|Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story}}

:* {{la|Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning}}

:* {{la|Wind at My Back}}

:* {{la|Magic flute diaries}} (deleted as copyright violation)

:* {{la|Magic Flute Diaries}}

:* {{la|Road to Avonlea}}

Users {{user|Sullivanmovies}}, {{user|Mschwartz311}}, {{user|Csheppard1}}, {{user|Maryland homework}}, and {{user|64.119.97.178}} all appear to be single purpose accounts that edit articles related to the company Sullivan Productions. User:Sullivanmovies is obvious; the IP is actually sullivan-ent.com according to the WHOIS; and User:Mschwartz311 is very likely [http://www2.variety.com/filmfests/2008/cannes2008_listings.asp?company_id=41749 Michael Schwartz] of Sullivan Productions. Recent edits include adding large amounts of copyvio [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_of_Green_Gables_(1985_film)&diff=228617337&oldid=227814354 promotional material about a line of books] to an article about a movie. I'm bringing this here as suggested in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive467#Somebody_isn.27t_happy_about_their_article_-_block-worthy_COI.3F this ANI report], which contains earlier examples of deliberate link-breaking and possible sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:I have added links to the report header. At COIN it is usual to attempt to negotiate with editors who may have a COI. Delicious carbuncle, if you know of any attempts at Talk discussions with these editors, I hope you will make a note of that. It would also help to list the recent improper edits to narrow down the problem. (Some of the information these editors have added, while over-promotional, may conceivably be adding value). Blocks are sometimes considered if COI-affected editors persist in improper edits and refuse to engage in dialog. A very quick look suggests this is what is happening here. But we need to show that all dialog has been rejected before taking further action. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks, Ed. User:Sullivanmovies was left a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sullivanmovies&direction=next&oldid=227451405 message regarding COI], among other things, in July. User:Mschwartz311 was left a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mschwartz311&diff=232912953&oldid=232735777 message regarding COI] in August, following my ANI report. None of the users appear to have ever responded to warning or messages left for them, nor did they participate in the two ANI discussions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#Removal_of_cited_material_on_advice_of_attorney.3F] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive467#Somebody_isn.27t_happy_about_their_article_-_block-worthy_COI.3F] ). There may have been some dialogue on the now deleted Sullivan Entertainment, but I can't be sure. Yet more promotional material has been added today [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_of_Green_Gables_(1985_film)&diff=236037382&oldid=234795288 here]. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Currently active User:Csheppard1 has not responded to notifications of this discussion, nor to EdJohnston's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Csheppard1&diff=cur&oldid=prev personal request]. It's clear that these editors are not interested in discussion. Meanwhile, these articles are turning into mini Sullivan Productions websites. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I left a note for User:Csheppard1 offering to userfy the article on Sullivan Entertainment, after seeing the comment at Talk:Sullivan Entertainment. She seems to have removed the stuff from the article that was previously flagged as a copyvio, though obviously she should not have removed the speedy deletion tag. Let's see if there is a further response. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::For the record, the comment was: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sullivan_Entertainment&action=history "I am an administrator working for the Sullivan Entertainment Company---I was under the impression i could use company created information. I will rewrite the content."]. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::User:Csheppard1 has re-started the article with different copyvio material, and has yet to directly repond to any of the messages left. Can someone please try getting their attention with a block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::No answer to the last two admin messages, and there was yet another copyvio in main space, so I blocked Csheppard1 12 hours. Let's hope for an appropriate response on her Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although blocking got the attention of one of the editors involved here, nothing has been done to address the earlier issues. I've started removing some of the more overtly promotional material that has recently been added, but much copyvio material still exists. The synopses for each film are easily confirmed copyvio; the "production notes" sections are very likely copyvio; and the season synopses on Wind at My Back are also likely copyvio. Adding {{copyvio}} tags for a section seems to break the rest of the article, so I've left it as for now, but I'd be grateful if someone could help me with this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:This isn't my usual hang-out, but the copyright problems board is. :) To tag a section, use {{subst:copyvio|url=whatevah}} and end with