Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Rich Barton Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Bound (2023 film) Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Chris Kubecka Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Nordea Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Linda Rabbitt Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zillow Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Nick Schwellenbach

• Nick Schwellenbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - was created by a user named Schwellenbach

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.144.3 (talk • contribs) 28 February 2008

I believe the subject is borderline notable. Though he created the article himself, he appears not to like the current version, since he tried to blank it, though his change was reverted. The article is at present tagged for notability, which seems correct. A thorough search might bring forth new references to show his notability, though that has not been done yet. Anyone who wants to propose an AfD is of course free to do so. I suggest this be closed as a COI item, since the article is reasonably neutral and very short, and it is appropriately tagged for its remaining issues. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the current version is nearly identical [1] to the version this fellow started, except the current version lists the subject as deceased. So its either actually him disagreeing with his life-status or a relative/fan. Maybe a COI tag to the user's page. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Left a uw-coi for the editor, and put {{Notable Wikipedian}} at Talk:Nick Schwellenbach as warning of the possible autobiography. EdJohnston (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

National Policing Improvement Agency

Resolved

 – user blocked, COI removed or tagged. MBisanz ^talk 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• National Policing Improvement Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Serious Organised Crime Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Special Response Units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(See accounts and IP's below) is making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up recent changes and the page histories of National Policing Improvement Agency - (created by Amcluesent), List of Special Response Units, Serious Organised Crime Agency and others.

Claims he works for the NPIA, see [2][3][4][5]. All the accounts and IP's have similar edit patterns. --Hu12 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work finding all the IPs. Probably a nice notice about COI and maybe an intro to editing template would be good. If anyone is thinking of blocking any of these IPs, it would probably be nice to report them to Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses since these seem to link back to official UK national police departments. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not inconceivable that WP might need to work with the UK police on some occasion, so let's be a little bit nice.

The only currently-active logged-in user in this group is Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

We need to get the attention of Bamford, to persuade him to moderate this editing. I suggest semi-protecting both of the articles listed above and all the related UK police articles, to prevent the clogging up of recent changes. Bamford was recently blocked for six hours. Until we can abate the flood of changes, it will be hard to discuss article improvement. The usage of so many IPs is very peculiar by WP standards. My guess is that a number of police employees have been asked to add information, but only Bamford has created an account. I suggest we ask Bamford to agree to some conditions:

• Ask all his colleagues to create an account before editing
• Identify (by account name) all the other editors who have affiliations with his organization
• Provide edit summaries for all changes
• No editing under an IP address
• No reversion of anyone else's edits without a Talk discussion
• Participate in discussions in good faith, and listen to the responses
• No more than 20 edits per day on UK police articles (per editor) until this COI item is resolved.

I suggest semi-protection until this is closed. I welcome your comments on this idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Although I might not list it as directly, say "If you could try avoid editing under an IP address". Also, edit summaries are important, but for many new users, I suspect their easy to forget. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't block or protect. "Clogging up recent changes" is not a reason to pull out the administrative tools. Leave messages for everybody and explain site standards to them. Coach them how to do things the right way. Jehochman ^Talk 12:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this point of view. Very strongly. Relata refero (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Editing in a manner that messes up the tracking infrastructure and confuses ongoing review of changes is a form of disruptive editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It means our systems haven't handled it properly. It isn't disruptive in and of itself. Relata refero (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In this context, I don't see the difference. It's an edit pattern that's damaging the purpose of cooperatively creating an encyclopedia. It's academic whether this arises by directly impeding other editors or interacting badly with "the system". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perplexing situation, there has been multiple attempts at dialog with little or no results. The latest response is a bit concernining, "I find this all rather sad and so pathetic that I can't even be bothered to debate this any further".--Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Have a look at the three edits that he was blocked for. (After scores of normal ones.) He's blanked the page twice, which is fine, he receives a warning. But in heaven's name, look at the third, which he was blocked for. Sheesh! Relata refero (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarfication as some editors seem to be confused about this - the NPOA is an govt administration and advisory body set up to assist and give direction to Police forces in a number of areas - they are [i]not[/i] connected to operational policing as carried out by UK police forces. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess he's decided against any communication. --Hu12 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article talk vandalism [6][7]..--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

More:
204.245.42.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I've protected the page due to the Anon switching IP's to remove the COI tag--Hu12 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[8] [9] removed the COI tag, and added 5 links to npia.police.uk.--Hu12 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

More [10][11] COI tag removal.--Hu12 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Maintenance_tag_vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Created another sock account Konemannn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. User:Bamford was indef blocked, and controversial editing of the main articles seem to have stopped a week ago. How do we feel about removing the COI tags? Does anyone see a current problem with their neutrality? To refresh your memory, here are the articles concerned (add others if you see any that were edited significantly):

• National Policing Improvement Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (COI tagged)
• Serious Organised Crime Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (COI tagged and semiprotected)
• List of Special Response Units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Durham (HM Prison) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Low Newton (HM Prison) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Police Staff College, Bramshill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say another week would be good. There were 5 days between the creation of his last 2 accounts. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Close? The week has passed. I looked over the articles listed above and noticed no serious problems. I added a notability tag at Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases. Though the issue of American bases may have significance in British politics, the article doesn't show the notability of this particular organization from reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and done. MBisanz ^talk 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise architecture

Articles:

• Enterprise architect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Enterprise architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zachman framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Zachman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• (perhaps others)

Single-purpose accounts

• Metaframe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Nov 2007 - Feb 2008)
• Lockezachman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Jan-Feb 2008)
• Len Morrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Phogg2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Ron Gaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Brandy Downs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Greg Zorne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Tom Corn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• MatthewFordKern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (July 2007)
• Mkernatmkerndotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (March 2008)
• (perhaps others)

Metaframe self-identified as Stan Locke, managing director of Zachman Framework Associates (note similarity in Lockezachman username).

COI edits, which for some reason included removing references and templates, were brought to my attention on my talk page by Ronz; he will probably have more to add here. — Athaenara ✉ 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither John Zachman or Stan Locke is Lockezachman and we detest the comments being entered as ours but in our initial protest of this userid Ronz pointed out there was nothing we could do to stop the use of this ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StanLocke (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Related discussions

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1#Help with Zachman Framework-related links?
• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Help with Zachman Framework-related articles

--Ronz (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lockezachman claims to "represent a group of about 60" [12]. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else think it's time to semi-protect these articles, given all these new accounts joining in? --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise architecture is protected because of the edit-warring there. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing the Zachman Framework article for the past couple of weeks in an effort to clear up its problems and clear the tags. A few others have made some contributions, but they have been constructive in my opinion. I don't think that article needs to be protected at this stage.

Phogg2 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: I have only just noticed that you restored important material on the Zachman Framework that users LockeZachman and Len Morrow had deleted for no reason that I could tell. Thank you. --Phogg2 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You might add User talk:Tom Corn to the list, he contacted me after I semi protected Enterprise Architect to complain about the Wrong Version I believe. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This tag-team edit-warring is getting tiresome. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, an editor named User:Metaframe, who is probably the same person as User:Lockezachman, made a very sensible contribution over at Data modeling#Data model, including a new image of the Zachman model. It is at Enterprise architecture, Zachman framework and Enterprise architect that he seems uninterested in paying any attention to our policies. Athaenara left a warning over at User talk:Lockezachman that included a big picture of a stop sign. Apparently this editor feels that only those references that are approved by his company should appear in Wikipedia. (We are not allowed to entertain any opposing points of view). Since he doesn't own Wikipedia, I'm not sure how he expects to make this happen. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lockezachman continues to revert out the TOGAF reference. I just left him a blatant vandalism warning. Would welcome some advice on how best to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to consider an initial block for Lockezachman. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be grounds for a block on a particular editor, but while we're still meditating on that option, I see there is movement over at Talk:Zachman framework. A couple of editors have been trying to remove the POV issues with the article. Phogg2 appears knowledgable in this area and (though he is still included in the COI list above) he has made some useful edits. Ronz has removed the notability tag from Zachman framework in response to the edits by Phogg2 and Nickmalik. I'm still hoping that someone can improve Enterprise architecture, which is really the parent article for this whole area. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the recent progress is a sign that this is coming to a resolution. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

StanLocke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just edited Athaenara's comment [13]
--Hu12 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

May want to look into these;
Svtveld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Jclouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Yogishpai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Metaman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Graham Berrisford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Mbwallace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
59.180.191.55 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
71.79.123.117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
80.36.91.222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
87.60.223.12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
81.82.136.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to StanLocke (talk · contribs) to try to get his user name clarified. If Lockezachman (talk · contribs) is someone else, then maybe we can get that name changed. It is logical that the real Stan Locke should be the person who logged in earlier as User:Metaframe. The latter had already complained to Ronz on 4 February about the situation with the names. In effect the misbehavior of Lockezachman (deleting references) appeared to emanate from the real Stan Locke. Per WP:U,

You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name

This might justify getting Lockezachman to change their name. At the same time we'd persuade Stan to use just a single login to avoid confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TStolper1W

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills (result: redirect to Hydrino theory)

• Hydrino theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TStolper1W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written what is essentially a vanity (i.e. self)-published biography of Randell Mills, an entrepreneur working in an area of unconventional physics. There is a legitimate question of whether there is a WP:COI generated by promoting the target of his work. In his defense, he claims that he has published the book on Amazon free from royalties and claims no other financial ties to Mills or his company, Blacklight Power. He has been asked to refrain from contributing to Hydrino theory, the main page on Mills' work, but shows no interest in stopping. Is there a case to prevent him from contributing at all based on this history? I'd appreciate some expert opinion on this. Ronnotel (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional information: Stolper is running a single-purpose account - he has only edited regarding Mills. Stolper was blocked once for edit warring on hydrino theory, and also continues to push his own personal POV on the article. Stolper's POV is in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus, which makes the edit warring and COI problems somewhat worse. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin note: awhile back, I restricted TStolper1W (talk · contribs) from editing the article Randell Mills, requesting that he limit himself to making suggestions on the talk page given his evident COI and related issues. However, now the Randell Mills article has been merged/redirected to hydrino theory, where TStolper1W is editing, and rather heavily at that. One option is to extend the sanction I placed on the Randell Mills article to hydrino theory now that the Mills article has been redirected there. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear (at least to me) that User:TStolper1W has a COI when contributing to either the original article Randell Mills or to the article where it now redirects, Hydrino theory. MastCell banned Stolper from directly editing the Randell Mills article here, and his notice to Stolper can still be seen on the latter's Talk page at User talk:TStolper1W#Notice. If editors who have a COI respond combatively to suggestions from regular editors that they be cautious, this inclines us to limit their editing to the article's Talk page, which is exactly the remedy that MastCell has established in this case. After perusing Stolper's talk page, and noting his approach when he receives comments and suggestions about his COI, I believe the situation fully justifies extending his ban at Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory. Ronnotel already notified him here about the WP:COIN report, but if he does choose to offer comment, we should listen carefully to what he has to say. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Provided Tom respects WP basic editing protocols I see no reason not to allow him to try to influence debate on the talk page. However, I would also like to hear more from Tom on this matter. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My paperback book isn't a biography of Mills. It's an extensively documented and footnoted study of the reception of his work, in historical and contemporary context. The paperback book is available from Amazon for $10.25 + shipping. At that price, there is no profit. Writing such a study and making it available is a credential, not a COI. Mills is a real and original scientist. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done: found a company, direct it himself for over 16 years, raise over $50 million for it, recruit and retain scientists and engineers with standard degrees and research backgrounds to work with him and for him, make presentations at scientific meetings, and publish dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. TStolper1W (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. You were invited to contribute here because an administrator, MastCell, is planning to extend your existing article ban on Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory as well. Your blanket defence of Mills's wonderful work doesn't give us much reason to take you seriously, since you didn't make any reference to obeying Wikipedia policies. Please explain how you plan to moderate your editing in the future so that you don't continue to deserve a ban from the Mills-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be far apart. Michaelbusch has been biased in the extreme against Mills from the word go, as one can see from what Michaelbusch has done and has written in the discussion elsewhere. In this section, he added a charge against me of running a single-purpose account (see above). It’s illogical to ask me to edit articles about which I know less in order to edit the article about which I know the most. As even Ronnotel conceded at the bottom of my User talk page, I know as much about that material as anyone (other than Mills himself). Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be very unneutral. TStolper1W (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TStolper, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this COI discussion. This is not about your views of Mills, or your mis-understanding of my enforcing Wikipedia's adherence to the scientific consensus. Here we are trying to determine if your block from editing of Randell Mills should be extended to hydrino theory, nothing more. As Ed noted, you are not helping yourself. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s not a COI to have studied, since 1991, the reception of Mills’ work, nor to have written and made available an extensively documented study of that reception. It’s a credential. The Wikipedia wasn’t founded to enforce orthodoxy. Enforcing orthodoxy by silencing other views stunts the progress of science and always has. Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be unneutral at best. TStolper1W (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that IS what wikipedia is suppose to do - we take the mainstream view on things using published sources - the "progress of science" is irrelevant to wikipedia. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's do this: TStolper1 may comment freely on the Talk:Hydrino theory. However, he is limited to 0RR in editing the article hydrino theory. This means that he may make an edit (as proposed text), but if it is reverted for any reason, then he may not reinsert it, in any form. This is an alternative to a complete ban from editing the article which would allow TStolper1 to contribute text suggestions directly, but not to edit-war. Expertise is welcome, but where there is a clear and well-documented connection as exists here, that expertise should be used persuasively on the talk page rather than by editing (or edit-warring) on the article directly. I'll open this for comment before imposing it. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. It does depend on him knowing how the 0RR works. I assume you'll be the one enforcing it so you'll be able to explain it if he winds up violating the ban due to misunderstanding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a WP:1RR would give him enough leeway to avoid being blocked out of unfamiliarity yet have the same practical effect of preventing him from engaging in edit warring. Zero reverts seems akin to a topic ban. Ronnotel (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, what is the connection to which you currently object? TStolper1W (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I like the idea of your proposal above, but I'm afraid Stolpher has considered it license to add bollocks back to the article - which I have just reverted. Please see hydrino theory's page history. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And again yesterday evening (revert by Athaenara). Michaelbusch (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell has updated TStolper1W's article ban to a 1RR on Hydrino theory here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on his editing history, Stolper will likely not change his editing habits with a 1RR/24 h ban - in the past week he has logged on three times, blanket-reverted to one version of his unacceptable content, accused the editors that removed it previously (three different editors) of having a personal grudge against Mills, and then gone away for roughly two days. Unless something stricter than 1RR/24 h is implemented, this will presumably continue. I may be overly cynical, but Stolper has demonstrated persistence. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I hope that you will examine the revision history of the Hydrino theory article, as well as the version that results from my editing, before accepting Michaelbusch’s interpretations. He has been leading and encouraging the attack upon Mills in the Wikipedia ever since I became aware of that attack (at the beginning of November 2007), and leading and encouraging the attack upon me ever since I began editing the article about Randell Mills (now deleted) and the article about his work (Hydrino theory), at the beginning of December 2007. Furthermore, Michaelbusch has shown himself to be biased in the extreme against Mills. Here is how Michaelbusch put it on 13 December 2007 in my talk page (his emphasis): “Understand this: Mills is a pseudoscientist and either a fool or a con man - that is the neutral evaluation.” If Michaelbusch thinks that evaluation is either neutral or right, then we are hopelessly far apart. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done, including the publication of dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. TStolper1W (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleveland Museum of Art

Resolved

 – The article was fixed up and the promotional tone was removed by a helpful member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Cleveland Museum of Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LAndrewsCMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Laura Andrews, a communications assistant at the Cleveland Museum of Art, recently made some edits to the article. She substantially expanded it, added pictures, etc. Her edits were later reverted as being inappropriate in tone. She emailed me, confused, asking what had happened. I'd like someone (or several someones) willing to work with her to make this article better. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits by User:LAndrewsCMA did create an article with a promotional tone. Unfortunately, there is no relevant conversation happening on the article's Talk page. Since this article is causing so much trouble, maybe stubbifying is the right thing to do. Promotional edits keep on being made, and then policy-enforcers sweep through and revert them, so we need a genuine improvement (even if it's only a stubbification) to stop the cycle of reverts. Any volunteers? :-) EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will leave her a message and try to help.--Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see the problem - she has not edited it for over a month. If she wants to be useful, releasing low-res images of star works of theirs we have articles on like The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew (Caravaggio) and Battle of the Nudes (engraving) would be a sensible way to boost their PR. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, thanks for your improvements. Can other editors look at Johnbod's March 1 version to see if they agree it's sufficiently neutral? EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - feel free to keep adding artist links after I got fed up doing so ... :) Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

COI tag on Leon's

Resolved

 – Apparent consensus at Talk:Leon's that the COI tag should be removed. The disputed passage mentioned earlier is now out of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Leon's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over the past 18 months, an IP user (207.188.94.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has made less than 10 minor edits to an article which, as of a few days ago, s/he was revealed as being connected with (via the Helpdesk edit in the history). Now two editors have added the COI tag, which says, "The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.". This doesn't seem to fit with the minor contributions of the IP editor - is this correct use of the tag? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this removal of a paragraph of criticism by the IP editor I think the COI tag is justified. The comments by this IP at the Help Desk should be carefully listened to, though, since under WP:BLP the subject of an article is allowed to remove what they believe to be factual errors. It needs an investigation to see whether the removed paragraph is truly justified, since it may not be relevant to an article about the furniture store. (Misbehavior by a relative of the store owner seems remote, unless his activities are blessed by the store management in some way). Consider inviting the IP editor and the person who restored the COI tag to join this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Naseba

• Naseba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scott ragsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 125.16.229.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Veena.ammadu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Indira.ravi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sachinuppal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

125.16.229.162 (talk · contribs) who is trying to remove fact tags and resisting clean-up on Naseba and associated articles such as Scott ragsdale, doesn't communicate. IP resolves to Naseba so clear COI. Also likely that Indira.ravi (talk · contribs) and Veena.ammadu (talk · contribs) are same editor. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistant little IP isn't he? Has he hit 3RR yet? Didn't look too closely at the others, but WP:SSP might be the best place. Do you think the article needs semi-protection at this point? MBisanz ^talk 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added {{userlinks}} above for users Veena.ammadu, Indira.ravi, and Sachinuppal. — Athaenara ✉ 17:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Common Cause article may need attention again

→ See also: COI/N archive 8 (two sections) and COI/N archive 14.

• Article: Common Cause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User Dbarnold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single-purpose account user Dbarnold1 expanded the article four-fold today. Earlier discussions of COI edits to this article are in more than one COI/N archive; the difference this time is that quite a few references to independent sources (in addition to several citations of the organization's own website) were added. I'm posting here to draw the attention of impartial editors to it again. — Athaenara ✉ 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been in the Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities since 2004 (diff). User Dbarnold1 removed it today (diff). I invited discussion on Talk:Common Cause#Question about removal of category. — Athaenara ✉ 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a student volunteer for this organization. However, I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest that would require me to withdraw from editing this article. I volunteer for their media and democracy department, which I made sure to not comment on as to avoid bias. I also made sure to cite credible sources for each statement made, pulling only from the organization's website for the mission statement, membership/funding data, and only two references to issues. — Dbarnold1 (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A well-known organization like Common Cause that is active in public issues should be heavily covered in the press. We prefer to reflect what outsiders say about an organization rather than what the organization says about itself, unless the facts involved are quite simple and uncontroversial. Someone who works in the media department of Common Cause should have access to lots of press clippings, I would assume. The current opening of the article sounds promotional, and we don't usually include multi-sentence direct quotes of somebody's mission statement as in:

Common Cause’s mission is: “To strengthen public participation and faith in our institutions of self-government; to ensure that government and political processes serve the general interest, rather than special interests; to curb the excessive influence of money on government decisions and elections; to promote fair elections and high ethical standards for government officials; and to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans

It would be OK to address some of those topics in our article, but we should obtain reasonably neutral and balanced press sources for the quality and extent of Common Cause's work in each area. We should not just report Common Cause's own opinion on how well everything turned out. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I've taken this article off my watch list, where it had been since the first COI/N discussion nearly a year ago. — Athaenara ✉ 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back to before Dbarnold1's 29 February edits is a possibility. However the new material is not without interest so rewriting would be better, if anyone has time to do it. Dbarnold has not edited the article since he was notified of the COI, and has made no Wiki edits at all since 3 March. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

XBRL

Article

• XBRL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page XBRL could use some attention. Almost all recent editors seem to have COI issues, large or small (including Lancet75, Colcomgroup, Mike Willis, and myself). I include myself in this category since I have been an editor of the XBRL specification, and I'm asking for some advice about the quality of my editing on the page and the talk page. Thanks! Dvunkannon (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since XBRL is an open standard, that argues in its favor. But nearly all the information provided in the article is from proponents. Isn't there any press coverage? Who needs XBRL, exactly? Who invented it? Does anyone agree with them? What's the extent of its adoption? Does it have disadvantages? Are there alternatives to XBRL? Our readers might like to know these things. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:CCHRInternational removing content from Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Resolved

 – Article now looks OK; the COI-affected editor has been indef blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Citizens Commission on Human Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CCHRInternational (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also adding poor content, probably copied from CCHR materials. John Nevard (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alex.muller blocked the account indefinitely 3 days ago. — Athaenara ✉ 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:212.183.163.237 appears to be advertising books by an Italian publisher

212.183.163.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits seem to be adding lots of book references to material published by Zecchini Editore who appear to specialise in classical music books.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Failure to understand the term "references" is a dead giveaway. Don't think there's a COI here but it's definitely spam. Reverted. MER-C 12:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it might be COI as it was adding disproportionate weight to this publisher as a source. How should I report such incidents in future?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:WPSPAM - 52 Pickup (deal) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for opinion about myself

Resolved

 – Voluntary self-report (which is good). Nobody has any concerns. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been accused of having a conflict of interest. Since I develop real estate on the island of Bonaire, and used to own a hotel there, it has been suggested that I should not have made this edit. By extension, I would think that my edits to the Natalee Holloway article would be called into question as well. I think that that is on the level of claiming that someone from Boston can't edit an article about Kitty Genovese, but I am airing the accusation here so that I can see the consensus.Kww (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the deletion of the reference to Holloway from the Aruba article, I see no conflict of interest there - I believe that there is no need to mention her in the body of the article (see Missing white woman syndrome).

For the Holloway article itself, most of your edits look fine, although I'm not so sure about this change. Why delete a link to a news article from a point in the article where a citation was explicitly requested? - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Stylistic, I guess. The citation needed flag seemed to be on the concept that there was coverage on Aruba (which really seems to be kind of a pointy flag in the first place), not on the fact that Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers.Kww (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. To me, the sentence says both 1) there was coverage on Aruba; and 2) Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers. Since this is an example of such local coverage (although Amigoe is based in Curaçao, Aruba still appears to be within the paper's circulation area) I think it is worth inclusion. Apart from that, I saw no other problems with your conduct, unless anyone who disagrees can provide a diff that proves the contrary. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No harm here, but that you for being careful. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:ArborBooks

ArborBooks (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA responsible for Oasis Entertainment (along with FeareygroupPR (talk · contribs)) and Derrick Ashong. The latter has had speedy declined under db-bio, and there is a potential notability argument, but in present form the article is pretty much vanispamcruftisement, and the Oasis article isn't a lot better. --Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

John Saldivar

Resolved

 – The article's promotional tone has been fixed, and the COI edits have stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Article: John Saldivar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User: Jsnyc79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A self-penned article that has been tagged for various things since Feb 2008. User:Jsnyc79 continually removes the tags, the main one being lack of references for which he doesn't seem inclined to provide. There is also a smattering of peacock terms. It's debatable as to whether this article should go to AfD but I'd be grateful for other eyes on it first. WebHamster 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up this article, formatted the references and reduced the promotional tone. Can others look at it and decide if the tags can be removed? If the article creator reverts the improvement, we might consider other measures. Since the article is neutral now and is quite short, I don't see the need to keep a COI tag on the front. Perhaps the 'Notable Wikipedian' banner is enough warning of possible autobiography, and it goes on the Talk page. References seem to show just enough notability to have an article on him. Your opinion is welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum

• Channing Tatum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See WP:AN#Second opinion for spammer (User:Wcfirm, Channing Tatum). Wcfirm (talk · contribs) has spent the last year here doing almost nothing but squeezing mentions of his own site into the article for actor Channing Tatum. He (she?) is now claiming his site is official (despite being a blogspot.com site) and therefore is more appropriate - but an entire paragraph?! Thread at WP:AN and recent WP:AN3 report have led to a week-long block. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I Googled for it and found another site channing-tatum.com that claims that the blogspot site is the official site. It could well be, because blogspot is easy to mantain and Google gives good search engine ranking to its own domain. Now a days the upcoming actors and musicians use free Web platforms like blogspot, facebook, and myspace to promote themselves. Igor Berger (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Laquishe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MaxSem blocked Wcfirm for a week at 05:54, 6 March 2008 UTC. At 06:31 UTC, another single-purpose account, Laquishe, began editing. Same? — Athaenara ✉ 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• channingtatumunwrapped.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• channing-tatum.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

--Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say Laquishe is a sock. That account has been indefblocked and Wcfirm's block has been doubled to two weeks. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I would say that his block needs to be extended again, as he continued to sock puppet even after he was warned not to. Here is an edit by his new blocked sockpuppet to my userpage. Daedalus (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Already done. A month now although I don't expect it will end there. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Millennium Pharmaceuticals

• Millennium Pharmaceuticals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Millenniumpharmaceuticals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I rescued this article from deletion, because the company is clearly notable, but User Millenniumpharmaceuticals keeps insisting on changing the article into a piece of marketing blurb rather than an encyclopedia article. My patience is running out, and I'm sure I will end up being uncivil if I carry on trying to sort this out, so could someone please help out? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have soft-blocked the user for having a promotional user name. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Article for Iga A.

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iga A.

• Iga A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems that a person or persons believing to be in contact with or running a site about Eve Wyrwal have been editing and/or vandalizing this page with conflicting information. They have not cited a source, but have alluded to a website that has questionable credibility in their edit summary. A portion of the information they edit is conflicting when checked against her published word in Nuts Magazine. Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

you have the wrong link. that lijnk goes to a polis model named Iga. Smith Jones (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, you will see that there have been several Eve Wyrwal and Iga A. page moves, with the pages alternately serving as redirects to each other ... — Athaenara ✉ 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is part of the problem, Iga A is just one of her nicknames, the usage of Eve Wyrwal is more wide spread. The page should be Eve Wyrwal. Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We have an infobox that notes if a woman has natural breasts? --Fredrick day (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You learn new things every day on this Noticeboard! Can anyone figure out the history of Iga A., which seems to involve an OTRS complaint? It appears that the administrator John Reaves had to intervene to impose move protection on one of the articles. Someone in the edit history is complaining about FlieGerFaUstMe262 adding incorrect information, but I have no idea who is right. An edit like this one should only be done with consensus. Various IP editors have been indignantly reverting the changes by FlieGerFaUstMe262. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly an easier way of handling this: is this Eva/Eve/Iga notable enough for inclusion per Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are many un-notable women in that category. I would say it is "the" un-notable category, and when weighed against others in that category I would say yes, notable. The complaining editor threatened to "take over the wiki" if I did not comply with his point of view. Then after claimed he filed a ticket. My case is that they have not cited a source, even an un-credible source. When they did imply a source, asking anyone who would disagree to contact an admin at what appears to be a fan site; one of the many fan sites with incorrect and conflicting information. The information I keep reverting to is information from a well know magazine that is publishing words from her mouth. Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated. I've passed it to AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For the Record I have been correcting the article. The website refered to is the official site for Iga Wyrwal, currently under development. FlieGerFaUstMe262 has cited nuts as his source, for the americans amongst us this is akin to somone saying "It must be true i read it in The Enquirer". These Lads Mags are notorious for making things up. The daily Star for example will change her age every time she is on page 3. My Source is Iga Herself. I can provide concrete proof of this but i'm not prepared to publish it on a public forum, (i have although sent it as an attachemt to the OTRS Complaint) If anyone can email me then i will do so. As for the name, Before coming to the UK Iga used her real name, The Daily Star used the name Eva & Eve without her consent, as they decided that this would be easier for people to pronouce this as you can see causes much confusion. For the Record She would prefer to be refered to as IGA or IGA A. All Iga & myself want is for the correct information to be displayed. Whilst i understand the difficulty you have in verifying information you must understand the sheer annoyance of somone trying to change incorrect information about themselves only to have it reverted DigitalWebDev (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Wall

A user editing under name Otherbrothergideon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be the father of the rapper Paul Wall and is changing the birth name and date of the biographical article contrary to what reliable sources have cited. I have tried finding whatever claims that "Otherbrothergideon" has put up, and so far no reliable source relays them. Thus, I have warned the editor about the "conflict of interest". Chances are that this user may be an impersonator. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did the right thing. Given he's been at this over a year and seems persistent, I might point him towards OTRS which can better evaluate his identity, etc. MBisanz ^talk 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Murdo MacDonald-Bayne

• Murdo MacDonald-Bayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stumbled on this after a posting to the external links guidelines talk page. It seems there is a disagreement about external links on this page that may be fueled by conflicts of interest by (I think) all currently involved parties. More eyeballs and comments from established editors could be useful. -- SiobhanHansa 10:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Considerable lack of sources too: all I can find are bios on a handful of tribute/promotional sites. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Tylman

Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biographical article on a Vancouver illustrator is almost exclusively the product of Poeticbent (talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses tracing back to the Vancouver Public Library. In the course of an ongoing exchange with Poeticbent concerning copyright and verifiability issues, I came across a “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” on Richard Tylman’s website. This list matches those originating with Poeticbent. My queries to the user as to whether he and Tylman might be one and the same [14][15] have gone unanswered. To be fair, Poeticbent has asked that I email him concerning this issue. I prefer discussing Wikipedia matters within the pages of the encyclopedia itself and have written as much. Thus far, no email exchange has taken place. I am concerned by the presence of references which either fail to support associated statements or – supported only by Tylman’s writing on his website – do not meet the verifiability policy. Poetricbent has removed my citation requests without explanation. I am particularly troubled by a new source which was added to Tylman's site, then linked to the article shortly after I questioned the lack of sources for the associated claim. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, where they have experience of what counts as acceptably sourced from an artist's own site and what demands external sourcing. That said, Poeticbent comes across strongly as wikilawyering on the matter of inclusion. If a detail is unsourced, or there's a discrepancy between what different sources say, it's well within policy to remove it pending verification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject seems notable as verified by independent sources. I see no bias or self-promotion; if a subject is willing to provide additional information (such as the document uploaded above) the better for our project. With regards to copyright, if the artist wants text (images, etc.) from his website to be used on Wikipedia, he should license them under a compatible free license. PS. Personally I oppose anonymity, but it should be noted it is accepted within our current rules. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject seems notable as verified by independent sources

Actually I'd like to see some - and in fact some general proof of this guy's notability (we all set up mimeographed mags when we were at uni, and anyone can self-publish poetry). We're placing far too much reliance on material on this artists's own site. I could set up a site saying I'm Lord of the Universe, but I hope you'd need more than that as verification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, with all due respect, I have never once addressed the issue of notability - not here, nor in the now lengthy ongoing discussion. My concern is what I perceive to be a conflict of interest, hence my report on this noticeboard. Given the history and content of this now twelve day old discussion, I think the time has come for me to be a little more blunt. Although Poeticbent refers to Tylman as "the subject", to Tylman's writings as "his Narrative", and has made statements such as "I hope you’re not suggesting that the subject might have attempted to misinform the reader?", I have come to the conclusion that Poeticbent and Tylman are one and the same. How else to explain the “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” featured on the Richard Tylman website?. And so, this whole matter grew from my defense of Tyman's copywritten material when he, in fact, was the person who introduced it to the article. That said, the issue of copyright was laid to rest with my rewrite of the material in question. This same edit, introduced several citation requests for reasons I outlined on the discussion page. All these citation requests were removed without explanation by Poeticbent. While I respect your opinion concerning the document uploaded on Tyman's website, then linked by an anonymous user to the Richard Tylman article (after I'd raised concerns as to citations), I remain troubled by the sequence of events. I must add that the document in question did not match that described by Poeticbent; it was not a "First Prize award for Illustration" he received, but an Award of Excellence presented to a team of which Tylman was a member. I have corrected this error. It is for reasons such as this that verifiability is so very important... it is for reasons such as these that the now removed citation requests were placed. Whether bias, self-promotion or not, I find myself wondering why it is that a seemingly minor 17 year-old award is accorded such significance, why 22 year-old ads run in magazines are deemed worthy of mention, and why a long, wholly unsourced list of corporations for whom Tylman has provided artwork must be kept intact. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was never my intention to misinform or create false impressions. Selected DYKed articles I wrote for Wikipedia are listed at http://richardtylman.atspace.com/index.html with a link to my User page. Everything is self-explanatory. Please try to “walk a mile in my shoes”. I’m interested in what agreeable solution can be found to end the edit-war and reclaim all that energy invested in bad karma. Originally, I provided reference to webpage about professor Strumiłło and his art because he does not have an article yet. I removed that link later along with his commentary, because no independent sources requested by Victoriagirl are available. Yet, Victoriagirl reinstated her request for confirmation. Why? Piotrus already said in his edit that new ref would be unnecessary because the remaining information is noncontroversial.

The same can be said about the citation request for “the most prominent young professional artists” statement. What's wrong with the source already given? It includes minute detail about the state-owned publisher fully supporting the claim. If this is just the matter of a word for word accuracy, your input would be appreciated. There are editors who express their thanks on Victoriagirl’s Talk page for her contributions to biographies of Canadians. I’d love to be able to do the same since I’m already impressed with how much research she’s done for this one article out of many. However, it takes two to tango. There’s no need to belittle national graphic arts competition. Graphex offers two types of awards: an Award of Excellence and an Award of Merit in 21 separate categories. [16] I won the top one in one of them in 1991 not because I was a part of a team, but because I paint. What documentation “error” was there in the article? By the same token, I’d like to suggest to User:Gordonofcartoon to please do a more thorough research on the concept of self publishing under communism. That sort of illegal activity used to be called Samizdat, but I was not a part of it. --Poeticbent talk 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I’ve nothing more to add on the subject of one’s identity, the issue of addressing oneself in the third person, referencing one’s work as that of another, or the fact that a good deal of time as been wasted defending copyright from a user who, in the end, turned out to be the copyright holder.

Noting that the plea to "walk a mile in my shoes" links to the "Writing for the enemy" essay, I hasten to write that I in no way consider the subject my enemy. However, I do recognize the allusions to vandalism, bad faith, and a repeated suggestion [17][18] that my request for clarification as to the identity of a user somehow counters talk page guidelines (when it doesn’t).

That said, I accept the above as something of a breakthrough and do hope that it might lead to something of a collaborative process. So, in that spirit, allow me, for a third time[19][20], to address my issues with the two citation requests mentioned by the subject.

• ”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”. This statement, added by the subject on 28 February referenced a link which makes no mention of Richard Tylman’s name. It may have been the subject’s intention to simply provide a reference to Andrzej Strumiłło himself, but it appeared and was read otherwise. While I appreciate that Piotrus may feel the statement is not controversial, I point out that this is not a valid reason for simply removing a citation request. I look forward to the thoughts of others on this matter.
• ”He received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts (ASP) and was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” The reference provided, a translation from a catalogue found on the artist’s website, does not support the claim that the subject “received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts”, nor does it support the assertion that he “was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” In fact, the quotation features no mention of Richard Tylman at all.

It was not my intention to belittle the Graphex award. I continue to find it odd that no independent source providing information on the 1991 award has yet been found. It is for this reason that I used the word “minor”. My apologies.

I believe my use of the word “error” in reference to the original description of said award to be appropriate. The subject had described the award thus: “He received First Prize award for Illustration at the 1991 Graphex competition…” In fact the subject is not a “First Prize award”, but an “Award of Excellence”. While I don’t doubt that the subject won the award for his illustration, it would appear that it was shared by several others. Minor distinctions, perhaps, but I would argue that it is for reasons such as these that verifiable sources are so important. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

Resolved

Order of the Arrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editors and a number of administrators who are also members of the Order of the Arrow are violating conflict of interest policies by prohibiting verifiable OA “secrets” from being included in the Order of the Arrow entry. To get around disputes on policy they have created a unilateral concensus that so-called "safeguarded" OA literature and information is off limits for inclusion in the article. however, such a concensus should not be allowed to stand since it a) was arrived at by a group that self-identifies as OA members b) that OA membership carries with it an oath not to reveal this "safeguarded" information c) creates a defacto censorship of the Order of the Arrow entry. Ahoalton1 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and agree why the circumstances as described might create the appearance of collusion. But I fail to see how that can be extended to assume that a COI exists. I see no harm in allowing members of the Order of the Arrow to continue contributing to that page. If verifiable and notable information is being kept of the page (please cite diffs), then that might reasonably be a matter for an WP:RFC. Ronnotel (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A COI exists because the editors are under obligation by the Order of the Arrow to keep certain information secret. They take an oath affirming as much. While I have no objection to their not revealing such information themselves, it becomes a conflict of interest when they enforce this "safeguarding" on the wikipedia community at large. They have literally reached a consensus to censor and entire body of verifiable information.--Ahoalton1 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide diffs that support your claims of censorship of well-sourced information then it would be easier to establish that something inappropriate is going on. However, I'm still not sure this is a COI issue. I think it might be more appropriate at WP:AN/I. The more evidence you have, the easier time you will have in getting someone to intervene. Ronnotel (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Related cases:
  • Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-11 Order of the Arrow
  • Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ahoalton

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This was opened by a indefinitely blocked disruptive sockpuppet. Dreadstar † 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And the list of socks continues to grow: [21]. Dreadstar † 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with closure. See also an ANI thread about the submitter of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous User 66.182.15.218 Widely Posting Commerical Links and Content

Resolved

 – Unclear if this was a COI or spamming. Either way the IP has been blocked for three months for disruption and the spam links have been removed. Euryalus (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

66.182.15.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is posting widespread content and links which look like ads for the company ZAP (motor company). He/she has ignored my polite requests to stop posting this commercial content, as well as my more recent, firmer requests. Please see Plug-in hybrid for examples, but this editors recent commercial postings have been widespread on many electric vehicle-related sites. Please help. Thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User is in danger of contravening 3RR e.g. in Motorcycle by re-inserting a link that was removed. IMHO user is just a vandal. --TimTay (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked (3 months). — Athaenara ✉ 03:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems resolved to me. Can anyone label this issue as resolved, or is that up to an admin? Fbagatelleblack (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We invite you, we beg you to resolve things! At the top of the report, add:

{{Resolved | Reason why you think it's resolved. ~~~~ }}.

If anyone disagrees with you later they can undo the resolution easily enough by removing the template. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks more like spamming than a COI but either way the three-month block and reversion of the unhelpful edits would suggest the issue is resolved. Euryalus (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

H. Paul Shuch and User:Drseti

• H. Paul Shuch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a scientist and engineer (and singer) who has made 86% of the edits to his own article, mostly as User:Drseti. Of 164 edits to H. Paul Shuch, 118 (72%) are by Drseti and another 23 edits (14%) appear to be him as IP addresses (see contributions by user here). The article makes a few claims that seem to indicate borderline scientific/engnineering notability, but has only four references (two to Shuch's own work and one to the introduction to a book by a close student and friend of his, that he also contributed to).

• Drseti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Single Purpose Account that also started Dr. SETI, which is now a redirect to H. Paul Shuch. I left {{uw-coi}} and notices on WP:Autobiography and WP:SPA on Drseti's talk page and will add a link here next. I would also appreciate input on Shuch's notability (should the article exist at all?) as it seems borderline to me. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Drseti made 6 more COI edits to H. Paul Shuch after COI and other warnings, with no reply to these concerns here, on talk pages, or even in edit summaries. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi

New iraqijm (talk · contribs) has been entering text describing "Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi" in the strangest places, often deleting valid contents. His entry is often long, and starts out something like this:

• "Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi, MD, PhD is the most distinguished Iraqi physician during the previous 3 centuries...."

I would just revert the whole thing, but thought I should bring it to your attention first, and gain some input from others.--Endroit (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I added a {{welcomeg}} and {{uw-coi}} tag to his talk page and a {{uw-v2}} and reverted what had not been taken care of already. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for a very expert handling. I wanted to be very careful not to bite the newcomer, but didn't know how to approach it. Those good faith templates are very nice, and I'll learn to use those in the future.--Endroit (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

National Taxpayers Union

National Taxpayers Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - NTUwikiproject (talk · contribs) appears to be editing from the organization itself. See also 70.90.81.61 (talk · contribs), which is almost undoubtedly NTUwikiproject given the timing of their edits. WHOIS confirms that 70.90.81.61 is used by the National Taxpayers Union. NTUwikiproject continues to edit the article without discussion despite two COI notices on his talk page. · jersyko talk 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PowerBasic Conflict Of Interest

The Entry for PowerBasic reads like glossy corporate brochure. It contains all of the highlights and none of the pitfalls of the product. It is the work of the owner who resists any and all attempts to edit his work counter to guidelines that state clearly state "You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organisations in which you hold a vested interest."

I have tried to add a couple of simple paragraphs to provide verifiable information to provide a more complete understanding of the product.

My addition, has been deleted five times by the owner of PowerBasic and is a clear case corporate vanity

"...I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation." -Brad Patrick

User:BradPatrick

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Deleting this content is by definition Tendentious.

"Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view."

My addition is conservative in its tone and respectful in its nature, truthful and verifiable.

This is what I Added: "Adherence to the strict "No Vaporware" policy, practically translates into "No Announcements" of future features leaving an otherwise sound product in the unknown category for developers looking for a compiler capable of embracing future needs.

The PowerBASIC compiler exhibits some features that diverge from mainstream compilers, including the use of the FPU for unsigned 32bit Integer calculations as acknowledged by the owner, Bob Zale. PowerBASIC COM integration is limited, but third party libraries exist to facilitate a more complete implementation. Jose Roca Forum

The User Forums are designed as "User to User" Forums and comrpise a significant body of imformation and support network for new users. Little, if any, official support is provided. PowerBASIC strictly enforces a policy requiring forum users to use their full real name when posting. PowerBASIC staff are very sensitive to criticism. Users are frequently banned for challenging PowerBASIC philosophy or criticizing the product and threads are deleted by staff. This situation is especially relevant for new users who may suddenly find themselves without access to any real support."

Citations: The first paragraph is self evident. There are simply no announcements defended under the guise of "No Vaporware"

Using the FPU for unsigned Integer calculations is acknowledged by the owner, Mr Zale here

My assertion: "PowerBASIC COM integration is limited" is discussed fully here

"PB returns DISP_E_EXCEPTION. This highlights a very serious shortcoming with PB-automation, and is why PB-automation can be a nightmare to work it."

I state: "Little, if any, official support is provided". This can be easily verified by looking at any category of the user forum for posts by powerbasic staff going back at least 5 years. Mr Zale also states: "It's not possible to include a free lifetime consulting service.... This is simply not something we can do free of charge based upon upgrade prices under $100. We'd like you to get the assistance as inexpensively as possible, and I really hope you can make a connection here. However, if all else fails, we have always offered paid technical assistance for "in-depth" problems of this nature. Feel free to contact us at your convenience if that is of interest to you."

"PowerBASIC strictly enforces a policy requiring forum users to use their full real name when posting" As stated directly on the User Forum signup: "Forum Rules To post, you must register with your full, real name (both first and last names). No handles or abbreviations are allowed. ... Profanity, rude, or disparaging comments (about PowerBASIC or others) is strictly prohibited... The owners of PowerBASIC Peer Support Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."

I assert PowerBASIC staff are very sensitive to criticism and users are frequently banned. From Mr Zale himself: 'Bob Zale, Administrator 'posted June 11, 2004 04:21 AM Actually, suspension was for a very short period of time... enough to "cool off"... certainly not permanent. Long ago, he was offered reinstatement upon agreement to follow forum rules. Regards, Bob Zale PowerBASIC Inc.

Another example

I further state: "threads are deleted" This thread was deleted, Because a PB Staff member, Dave Navvaro states: "we will have a compiler for Linux some time this year"

The original thread is here It should be noted that despite the alleged "No Vaporware" Policy, a Linux compiler has never materialized.

This thread was also deleted, because it pointed out the unsigned integer inconsitency in the compiler. "I've had more than one experience while converting C to PB in which PB's DWORDs have created results that don't match the results of the same operations employing unsigned integers when coded in C. " The thread is still available here Any casual developer can verify this in seconds, but if you do not know it's there you are likely to waste hours looking for a non-existent bug.

My Last sentence is self evident.

I also added a link to a very important resource for PowerBasic users, Jose Roca Forum This has also been deleted. The site contains a large amount of very useful content, much more so than the sites sanctioned by the owner, but also contains threads like the one linked above that point out the issues with the compiler.

I was advised that my comments must meet verifiability policy. While I agree that in general "Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable" Some however, are edited by reliable organizations, and therefore may possibly be justified as exceptions. I can't imagine any stronger verification than statements from PB staff and the owner himself, on the official PowerBasic website.

I would like to see this content on Wikipedia to reflect a balanced representation as intended by the five pillars.

I would appreciate any feedback

RealWorldExperience (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mitch Gaylord

Mitch Gaylord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be under the tight control of Gaylord himself and someone close to him. A recent edit was reverted with this explanation:

"Mitch & I keep having to update this information. Why does anyone change it?"

Also, the article reads like an ad for Gaylord's commercial website and his wife's as well.63.202.124.213 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)