User talk:Orthodox2014

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emmanuel Lemelson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington and Canonical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed verifications

You've written an impressive biography of Emmanuel Lemelson, packed with impressive details and equally impressive citations. Unfortunately, almost none of your citations actually verify the facts which they cite. For example, when I see a statement that Lemelson's amvona.com site had 300,000 customers and 750,000 unique visitors, and when I see that statement referenced with three different citations, I'd expect at least on of those citations to actually verify any of those facts, but they don't. The same can be said for so many of the citations on this page. Now, admittedly, most of the citations do actually talk about Lemelson in some form or another, they just don't verify the claims of the article. The biggest problem that I see is the claim that Lemelson's report was the deciding factor in the WWE stock price tumble. My reading of the sources indicate that he may have been the one analyst who foresaw this trend, but there is no clear indication that his report was responsible for the stock price fall.

Overall, you appear to have engaged in "reference stuffing", padding the article with multiple references to make it appear impressive. In this case, that appears unnecessary: Lemelson appears to be a fairly impressive character without the reference stuffing. However, I would advise you to review your citations and pare the article down to use only those which actually verify the information at hand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do that. Orthodox2014 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Amvona.com statistics, which appear in the primary, not secondary, sources. I also have corrected and added several other references as it relates to his responsibility for the WWE stock correction. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox2014, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Orthodox2014! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Emmanuel Lemelson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ceo/ "WWE News: Vince McMahon loses $350 million in one day, could be forced out as CEO," Inquisitr], Retrieved May 22, 2014.</ref><ref>[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/20/when-will-the-
• deal: The red wedding," by Sarah Barry James, SNL Financial, May 19, 2014], Retrieved May 22, 2014.]</ref><ref>[http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2068702-biggest-takeaways-from-wwes-may-19-business-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation overkill

I added Category:Citation overkill to two articles you are working on. Please read Wikipedia:Citation overkill and go back and merge as many of the citations in these articles as practical. Where possible without causing something that needs to be sourced to become unsourced, favor "more reliable" sources over "less reliable" ones ("more" and "less" are relative in this context - I'm assuming all of your sources are reliable, if they are not, get rid of them and the content that they back up). If you can do so without discarding "more reliable" sources and without causing something that needs a source to become unsourced, favor sources that give significant coverage to the topic of the article over those that are used to back up just a few small bits of information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I will do that. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that if a fact is already cited in the body of an article, there is no need to cite it in the lede introduction (unless it is a very grand or implausible claim). In fact I removed all of the inline citations from the lede intro and you have now added them all back again! They were largely links to articles by Lemelson, so have limited importance. Please try and make the article usable and readable, and avoid WP:CITEKILL. Thankyou. Sionk (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Lemelson Capital Management for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemelson Capital Management until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sionk (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate this edit

I appreciate this edit, Orthodox2014. I still believe that this article should be deleted, and I assume that you still believe otherwise, but I am glad that you are not turning a deaf ear to other editors' concerns--it's all too easy to do so in these situations. This is an improvement, and if the article is kept, so much the better. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lemelson

Hello again. I see that since I edited the two Lemelson articles to clean them up you've started editing a pre-clean-up version of one of them in your sandbox. Please don't overwrite the live article with this version: it's very clear from your actions since creating this account that you have an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding this topic. I've tagged the talk pages of the articles concerned – if you care at all about Wikipedia, why don't you admit your connection? Whether you do or not, I strongly recommend that in future you should confine your actions to requesting changes on the relevant talk pages. If you disagree with this, our dispute resolution page explains the actions you could take.  —SMALLJIM  11:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am going to review your edits and keep any that seem reasonable, but you again have done wholesale removal of biographical content and associated references that only serve to leave the article incomplete and less properly referenced. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you denying that you have a conflict of interest here?  —SMALLJIM  18:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no conflict of interest and my edits have been constructive. Your repeated removal of content and your failed, utterly unjustified deletion nomination of the Lemelson Capital Management page suggests you do. I am happy to work with you on consensus edits to the page, but that does not include just removing notable content and associated media references. Why precisely are you removing it? You offered no explanation to these edits, and they certainly appear destuctive in nature. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The deletion nomination was made by Sionk, not me. I did comment there and the consensus decision was not what I suggested. However I'm content to go with the consensus, and if you review the comments made at that AfD (and those at the article talk pages), you'll see that my edits have been in accordance with the majority of opinions expressed.

Regarding the conflict of interest aspect, I'm sure that you do have one, so shall we ask for an informal third party opinion on that question?  —SMALLJIM  18:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact there was "No consensus", which means what it says. It doesn't preclude someone from nominating the article for deletion discussion again. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Here again! There's really no point in editing your sandbox copy as if you're going to put it into article space. If you want any changes made to the article, just request them here and someone will consider them – thanks! You could do some useful editing to other articles on topics that you're interested in; I think I've suggested that before.  —SMALLJIM  16:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You have suggested editing other pages, and I intend to do that. This was a glaringly missing article and the only reason I started with it. I do not, however, agree that you have the right the edit the page (removing content) and that my edits need to be restricted to the talk page. We both have equal opportunity to make constructive edits consistent with the editorial guidelines, and that's my only goal here. I believe you have removed content and references that are meaningful. And you never answered my question here a few days ago as to why. I also see some edits you made that I agree with, and I intend to incorporate them. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I know you don't agree about COI, which is why I suggested a 3rd party opinion (though I'm not now sure if that would be the right venue – a report at WP:ANI may be more appropriate). I clearly answered your question in my reply of 7 May - for instance, most editors who have seen the article(s) consider them to have had far too many references. Have you read our policy on ownership?  —SMALLJIM  17:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have read it. It's the reasoning behind my earlier statement that we both have equal opportunity to edit the page consistent with the site's editorial guidelines. I don't necessarily disagree about references and will likely remove a few and see if there might be others since I last looked at this a year ago. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

COI

How would you like the question of your conflict of interest to be resolved? Of the five editors who have made more than one material comment on these topics, four – User:Sionk [1][2], User:Ravenswing [3][4], User:Davidwr [5], and me – have mentioned COI concerns. Only User:Hobbes Goodyear has not. You must be aware that just ignoring the issue or claiming that it isn't true is not enough.  —SMALLJIM  20:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Smalljim is right, at this point you cannot ignore the issue. You need to read and clearly understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies including its Conflict of interest guideline. This is especially true if you do not actually have a conflict of interest, because by understanding this guideline you will understand why other editors see your behavior as likely indicating a conflict of interest (yes, "false positives" do occur). There are valid, non-COI reasons why a person might edit in a way that "looks like" he has a COI. Some of these reasons are what I call "pre-COI" and the editor who edits for these reasons needs to be very aware of Wikipedia's purpose, policies, and guidelines and very aware of his own motivations in editing so he does not cross the line.

An example of a "pre-COI" would be an editor with little or no Wikipedia experience choosing to write an article about a person or a company as a school project. After the semester ends, the student does more research on that person and continues editing the article. All is well and good, but the student later decides to write an independent-study paper or a thesis for academic credit or publication in a scholarly journal on the topic. Now we are getting into deep COI and WP:No original research territory, as the student's academic career and academic reputation is blurring with the goals of Wikipedia. Not only that, but there is a good chance that the student will develop a bias regarding the topic, perhaps even a strong bias bordering on "hero worship." If this "hero worship" happens, not only will it make him unsuitable to edit related topics in Wikipedia, a strong bias which is not checked-and-balanced by a professor or thesis review committee may lead to an academic paper which any professor or publication should reject due to bias issues.

The possibility of "Hero worshipping" a person or topic isn't limited to just students, it's something every Wikipedia editor who spends many hours (or man-days or man-weeks) researching a topic is likely to face. Experienced editors get to know themselves and their topics well enough to know when they are starting to lose objectivity on a given topic and either shift to other topics or take a break from editing. Those that don't wind up writing in a biased way, to the determent of the project. On a good day, the editor get "called out," which is generally good for the project and, if the editor is willing to ask himself "now why do other editors think I have conflict of interest, is it something about the way I am editing, perhaps?" and change their editing accordingly, good for the editor. On a bad day, nobody notices and the editor naively continues to harm both himself and the project. Maybe yesterday (May 9) was a good day for you and for Wikipedia.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)