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:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Capital One Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Comcast Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Liberty Towers Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:Vicki Psarias Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rainer K. Sachs Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

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.

Wolfberry

• Paul144 (talk · contribs)
• Wolfberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Frank Gross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Various fruit-related articles citing articles by Paul Gross.

User:Fram needs help in a dispute at Talk:Wolfberry#Self-published book, which looks a COI issue. Paul144 is reverting the removal of a self-published book - Wolfberry: Natures Bounty of Nutrition and Health - and pushing for its inclusion as a reference.

A look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Antioxidant shows Paul144 to have self-identified [1] as "a contributor to a few of these {online publications), e.g., http://www.npicenter.com/news/DrPaulGross_articles.aspx". The link goes to a bio of a Dr Paul Gross, aka The Berry Doctor, "senior author of a 2006 book on the goji berry entitled Wolfberry: Natures Bounty of Nutrition and Health" ... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that a gross = 144, the identification seems rather obvious... Anyway, yes, I could use some help. Fram (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I left some comments there, and a more direct approach to evaluating the book against policy, rather than the "sps may be used under certain circumstances, so lets argue about what those circumstances might be", and so on. Arakunem^Talk 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you about the book, and have commented at Talk:Wolfberry. However, I think this goes a lot further. If (as it appears from the self-identification) Paul144 is Paul Gross, "The Berry Doctor", whose job is promoting exotic berries, COI and neutrality issues need looking at in the whole area of editing articles about these berries. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to come up with a way to bring up the fairly obvious name coincidence, coupled with his statements from the above Arb case, without seeming too WP:OUTING-ish. Your statement that if he is Gross, that he should be recused from discussion on the book's inclusion, is spot-on. Once that connection is made, then I agree some additional scrutiny on related articles is in order (as the COI policy tells conflicting editors to expect). Arakunem^Talk 00:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the general issue of COI and berries, the sort of thing where concern might be appropriate is edits like this to Anthocyanin that introduces one of his own promotional articles - about an "International Symposium on Berry Health Benefits" of doubtful notability (7 unique Google hits) - as lead topic and reference for the Research section. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability comment redacted: it doesn't Google because it was misnamed in the Gross reference. There's evidence of linkspamming to this reference too - see Linksearch - not to mention the majority of these links to Paul Gross articles added by Paul144 to various plant and fruit articles here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it more simple: links to his works (articles or books) on berries and superfruits have been added to 17 articles (perhaps more, those are the ones currently remaining).[2]. An article like Berry has three references to his work (it had four, but he self-replaced one of them today). It is not his fault that no one else ha made a serious effort at writijng a good scientific, well referenced article on berries, but the general feeling one gets is that a wide effort is done to promote his work, which is mainly commercial instead of scientific. Such self-promotion should be discouraged as much as possible, and removing all references to his works seems to be the easiest and best solution. Fram (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And even if the sources are fine individually, the whole pattern is POV-pushing of a marketing stance - "Science Shows Berries Are Gooood" - by giving undue weight to cherry-picked (hoho) primary sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I just noticed that Paul144 outed himself a second time here previously in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Gross where, on being asked specifically about his connection to the subject, said he was the son of Frank Gross.[3]. That article cites a CKTimes reference - Frank Gross Memorial Banquet honours memory - with pictures of Paul144 / Paul Gross that are recognisably our Berry Doctor. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum 2: borderline legal threat by e-mail reported to WP:ANI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't look anything like a legal threat. Not even at midnight in a blizzard. -- Zsero (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. I guess it depends how you read "take to administration". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum 3: Google site:berrydoctor.com Wikipedia. A number of pages use as external validation articles majorly edited by Paul144, like this one on goji berries ("See the Wikipedia articles on wolfberry (goji) and superfruits -- check out the References in each article!"). That looks a very misusable relationship with Wikipedia.

I'm also concerned about Paul144's expunging evidence that explains the potential COI. [4]. WP:OUTING hardly applies when someone has already disclosed their identity, and information about a book and company background splashed on their respective websites is not private information. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Reprise

So, we have an editor who creates an article on superfruit with 24 references (not used inline), including four to articles by Gross.[5]. A few days later, Gross creates on another website a different article on superfruit, without footnotes, but with at the end a list of the same 24 references (including even the numbering).[6] Our article has sentences like "more than a dozen industry publications of functional foods and beverages have referred to various exotic or antioxidant species as superfruits (4-24), yet this category presently does not have a working definition." The Gross article has "More than a dozen industry publications for functional foods and beverages have referred to various exotic or antioxidant species as “superfruits” (4-24), yet this category presently does not have a working definition."

If this is not the same or a closely affiliated editor, then Gross is a shameless copyist, writing an article where he copies the refs and whole sentences from Wikipedia. But whatever the case, this external article is itself used as a reference on Wikipedia by the same editor in at least 6 articles[7] (or rather 7[8]), including the one it was originally taken from. The ref is added the same day it is published on NPIcenter[9].

Basically, this user has been spamming Wikipedia with references to a self-published book and a number of articles in industry journals. No matter if he is the same person or someone else (the editor does not want to be associated with Gross in Wikipedia discussions...), I don't believe this is acceptable behaviour, or that these are acceptable sources. There is enough information over these berries available that we don't have to rely on unreliable information. If that means that the articles will have less information on all "superfruit" aspects of these plants, so be it. We will catch up once science has done so. Fram (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fram, you're all consumed in an invective froth over my simple desire to educate with scientific facts rather than marketing hype prevalent in the consumer market for superfruits and berries.

Here's the skinny:

• the wolfberry book is the only one available based on objective science. It cites research literature extensively, makes no unfounded health claims and adds considerable new information to the wolfberry literature, such as nutrient tables, horticultural practices and a history of traditional Chinese medicine involving wolfberries.
• the book was written out of intellectual interest only, is non-promotional of specific wolfberry products and returns nothing to me but modest revenues only to the company that paid for book production (has no WP:COI for me as a Wikipedia editor)
• the NPI Center and Wikipedia articles on 7 superfruits with citations to Gross are based on objective science, were volunteered and written out of intellectual interest and educational intent only, had no expectation of income and have returned no income (have no WP:COI for me as a Wikipedia editor)
• the Wikipedia article on superfruits is based on published industry and marketing analyses by journal reporters, objective science cited extensively and challenges to unscientific myths and marketing hype prevalent in the consumer market for superfruits and berries. Its intent is to provide truths for encyclopedia readers who likely are seeing misleading statements and false health claims about superfruit products in the consumer industry. I created it, continue to update it, and would love to have constructive feedback about it.

WP:COI: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." How can this apply to the Wikipedia wolfberry or superfruit articles?

I had the courtesy to offer explanation and request a private dialog with you by using Wikipedia email but you did not have the courtesy to reply. You'd rather stand on your soapbox here and toss toxic bombs like I am a spammer, I engage in unacceptable Wikipedia behavior or am a shameless plagiarizer. You have your chance now to speak directly here -- we can vent your vilification.

This discussion has received WP:RS feedback by Squidfryerchef[10]--Paul144 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The "courtesy" was a message that you don't want your COI to be made even more public than you have done already, not an invitation to private discussion, in which I'm not interested anyway. But since you have thrown all civility aside, let me put it plainly: you are a spammer. However, I have nowhere indicated that you are a shameless plagiarizer. On the contrary, I have indicated that if you are not Paul Gross, then Paul Gross would be a shameless plagiarizer. But if you are Gross, then you can not be an objective observer of the articles and books, and of their merits. You are everywhere inserting Gross' articles and Gross' book. If his book is the only one about a certain scientific subject, and that book is not peer reviewed, not reviewed afterwards by any reliable sources, and not used as a reference in any scientific works, then it is not an acceptable source for scientific information on Wikipedia.

Let's check out the non-promotional, intellectual only efforts: Gross has written a book (linked here a number of times). This is done on behalf of RichNature[11], the company behind Wolfberry.org, a shop for wolfberry products (and for Gross' book), and a company which is linked from Gross' berrydoctor pages[http://berrydoctor.com/broadcast/2006/AcaivsGojiORAC.htm at the bottom, there are two links for Goji, one is Wikipedia, and the other is the RichNature shop).

RichNature itself uses two references: your book, and the Wikipedia article[12].

But all this could by stretching the good faith still be explained as an independent researcher referencing a commercial site, and that commercial site referencing this author, without any real business relationship and without any financial reasons. However, would we find that you are more closely affiliated with Rich Nature, things would probably change. Something like Gross being the Canadian representative of the company (see page 78 of the 130), perhaps? Fram (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who don't want to wade through the PDF, the document is the Canadian Intellectual Property Office Trademarks Journal, April 16, 2008 — Vol. 55, No. 2790.

1,325,391. 2006/11/22. Rich Nature Nutraceutical Labs, Inc, address redacted UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Representative for Service/ Représentant pour Signification: RICH NATURE LABS, C/O DR. PAUL GROSS address redacted BRITISH COLUMBIA.

But we shouldn't even have to delve this deep. Going back to basic guidelines of WP:COI:

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups ...

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with

Note that "conflict of interest" is not defined in terms of income but as "to promote your own interests" - anything that derives you benefit, whether commercial, intellectual, religious, egotistical, whatever. Creating an article about a close relative - see Frank Gross - is a classic conflict of interest situation. Even if there's no financial affiliation and/or income, editing relating to a book of which you're the author is also a clear COI. The Berry Doctor has a particular story to tell about berries in a way that's clearly promotional - look at the style of the website [13] - and it's similarly a conflict of interest to edit Wikipedia in close synchrony, as Fram describes above, and to link to his own articles as references, since it's directing Wikipedia toward the aim of telling that story. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Fram, I'll see your Trademarks Journal entry and raise you AAA Superfruits, Canada.

Manufacturer, Trading Company, Agent, Distributor/Wholesaler ... We broker raw material supplies and purchases for numerous superfruits from Asia, Australia and Brazil ... As added value, AAA Superfruits is managed by a PhD scientist and author of books, industry articles and conference presentations on superfruit nutrients, phytochemicals and medical literature ... Contact Person Mr. Dr. (sic) Paul Gross.

and

Legal representative/Business Owner: Berry Doctor Corp. [14]

A purely intellectual interest in superfruits? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by a neutral administrator

I think, perhaps, Paul144 is most likely Paul Gross, as noted at the duck test. In any case, I feel a lot could be fixed here if the account in question - whoever it belongs to - stops linking to anything linked with Paul Gross. Linking to anything that you're involved in - even as a reference - is a very dangerous path to walk down, and will get picked up on quite easily. However, it also appears that Paul144 is a good editor, and to lose him would be a loss to the project overall. Paul444, in light of the above conversations, I'm going to ask that you edit topics that aren't related to Paul Gross, his companies, or his works. Let someone else insert the references, once they have consensus. At the moment, the material doesn't have consensus, and as such, it shouldn't be included, reliable source or not. If you think I've completely misread this talk - it's quite hard to follow - please let me know! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask that you edit topics that aren't related to Paul Gross, his companies, or his works

Given the AAA Superfruits connection (see above) I think that should be extended to any superfruit topics too. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll now remove all links to works by Gross, as they are clearly intended as spam. Fram (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

James B. Golden

Resolved

 – Deleted at AfD. Arakunem^Talk 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamesbgolden (talk · contribs) - conflict of interest with this article: James B. Golden. User has been notified of COI and his Bio is up for deletion over here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James B. Golden --Flewis^(talk) 10:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:FrankLloydGallery

Resolved

 – per below. Arakunem^Talk 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has been adding a large amount of peacock/pov information and plagiarized text on artists that are represented by a company known as Frank Lloyd Gallery. (Peter Shire (artist) and Craig Kauffman (artist) are the ones where he's active at the moment.) Furthermore, he has been unilaterally removing cleanup templates without addressing concerns and, more seriously, removing ifd templates from fair use images he has uploaded, without giving a FUR or engaging in a discussion about the image. The two articles I linked to above both originally had large amounts of text cut and pasted from websites (either Frank Lloyd Gallery's own website, or another website in the case of Craig Kauffman (artist)) and this user has repeatedly reinstated that text in the articles after I commented it out or deleted it. I have warned the user about his edits and about COI, and another editor has also asked the user do disclose any possible COI, but the user has ignored all requests for discussion. Can anyone suggest a next step? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment The user has acknowledged here that he is Frank Lloyd himself. Themfromspace (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: the user just admitted to being a representative of the subjects of those articles (diff), so it's a legitimate COI. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, you saw that quickly. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The COI is pretty clear here, but note that this does not prevent him from editing the article, as long as he stays neutral and verifiable. As for the copyright issue with using text from his web site, if he is the copyright holder, he is allowed to use the same text here, though he will be releasing it under GFDL if he does so. See Wikipedia:Copyvio#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. I'll leave him a note letting him know this, and as long as he understands the implications of doing so, the text itself is not considered a copyvio. It still may have issues with Peacocking, but once he posts it under GFDL, it may then be modified to stay wikipedia-friendly. Arakunem^Talk 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Update -- This user has been unblocked and changed his user name; he has read the policies on COI and NPOV and has agreed to keep his edits neutral. The user requested that this report now be archived; I don't know what the rules are on archiving these so I'm just leaving you regulars a message here. Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lorenzo43

Resolved

 – Blocked for spamming. Arakunem^Talk 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Lorenzo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be link spamming Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked indef along with [[::User:Larsvegas43|Larsvegas43]] ([[::User talk:Larsvegas43|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Larsvegas43|contribs]]). Account hopping to avoid being blocked for spamming. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Neotu

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

User:Neotu is a SPA who created the article on the Neotu art gallery. He has admitted that he was had a major role in the creation of the gallery, but he keeps removing the COI tag placed on the article. On User_talk:Fabrictramp#NEOTU he has defended his moves, saying that the term "conflict of interest" is very offensive where he is from. He seems pretty adamant on keeping the article tag-free as evidenced on my talk page, and Fabrictramp's. I thought further discussion was due in order to establish a wider consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been peripherally involved already. I've tried to explain what the COI tag is and is not, and that it just alerts COI patrollers to keep their eyes out for any POV. Not being a French speaker, I can't say either way about how the term COI is perceived in that language. Since the user is willing to have a text tag saying essentially the same thing, but without using the actual term "Conflict of Interest", I'm willing to take him at his word there. As far as the article goes, it is relatively factual, albeit uncited. There's 1 peacock'y line in the designers paragraph, but the rest of the article seems relatively neutral. As mentioned, I've been involved already, so I'll defer here to other responders. Just filling in some blanks up to now (see my talk page for the full convos). Arakunem^Talk 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I can echo everything Themfromspace has said. I am a French speaker (used to live in France, but not in Paris and I never encountered this gallery), and I know of no such issues in French with the term. However, everyone reacts to phrases differently, so this may be Neotu's particular take on the phrase. (Interesting that it took him 6 days to bring that up.) Trying to look objectively at the article (which I may not be able to do, given how much this editor has tried to provoke me), the first paragraph is definitely fine, but the Designers, Exhibitions and Bibliography sections are a bit excessive and are the reasons I think a COI tag should be on the article. Yes, those sections are simple statements of fact, but in such detail and length that they become unencyclopedic.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note I notified Neotu that his username was against guidelines and he's currently seeking to have it changed. He put in a request for "Neogejo" (another company he's affiliated with) and that request hasn't been acted upon yet. Just a heads-up that his username will soon be changing. Themfromspace (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an art gallery catalog. I could imagine an informative article about the gallery, backed up with some things that reliable sources have said about it. But if you look at the article, it's a data dump. I suggest that the article be proposed for deletion. That would allow five days for further work to be done on it. If you don't have time to read the article, this one sentence will give the flavor: Neotu promoted excellence in contemporary furniture since its conception in 1984 until it ended in 2001. That's about all you will get, except for a bunch of lists. No objection if someone wants to attempt an article rescue, but you'd need to start from practically zero. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Neogejo is not the name of a company. It is my AVATAR as a writer in e-writing, poet in e-poetry and as a designer in Graphic and Website design you can check/search on Google: Neogejo and/or Gerard Dalmon. I do not agree when it is said that the Neotu article is an "art gallery catalog". So far the article gives a list of Designers who had worked for the Gallery. A chronology of the exhibitions, and a bibliography which could be very useful for people for want to make research on the avant-garde furniture design in the 80's and 90's . I am welcoming any contributors to bring critics regarding the past activity of Neotu. To make comparison with other art gallery please could you check the article Gagosian Gallery. Is this article also an "art gallery catalog"? This gallery is still "alive" and running business in London, New York, Los Angeles and Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please find below a list of external links refering to Neotu. This could be an excellent material for future contributors who would like to bring more content in the introduction of the article

• New York Time Magazine November 8 1990
• New York Time Magazine October 31 1996
• The Washington Post September 24 1992
• France Magazine Summer 2001

etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

These articles are a start. At least there are some verbal descriptions of the furniture. It would be good to see some pictures. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on this article since beginning of November. It is not finish. Also I am a beginner in Wikipedia, these are my first steps. I agree pictures of furniture are missing. But I do not how to add them. Anyway you can see a selection of furniture which are a part of the French Museums collections. This is a tiny selection of what Neotu Gallery has shown and also MANUFACTURED. Because before being a gallery Neotu was first an avant-garde furniture manufacturer.

• Collections of the French Museums Put: Neotu in the search. You will get two pages of photographs of pieces which are in different museums in France included the Pompidou Center which is a Modern Art Museum in Paris.
• Collections of the Museum of Decorative Arts in Paris

• Just one more question. Do you know in Wikipedia contributors or experts in Contemporary Furniture? I could get in touch with them to ask advice and see if some are interested to collaborate to the Neotu article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Now it's getting down to specific content discussion, probably better to take that side of things to Talk:Neotu. These are useful links.

That said, I think we still need to be careful to keep on the right side of WP:COI here. The original tone of communication at User talk:Fabrictramp#NEOTU didn't suggest sufficient neutrality toward the subject, and I get a little jittery when Wikipedia presence is too closely tied to the aims of some external website (i.e. User:Neotu is here to "try to trace the history of Neotu galleries" and at Neotu.com is a holding page with "Coming soon the future website of Neotu which will trace the history of the galleries" [15]). Maybe it's a mutual interest that does no harm, but it feels like conscription to do someone's homework unless it's very clear that Neotu is not the arbiter of content/tags/etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My user name is no longer Neotu. It is now Neoge. I will delete the neotu.com link in the external links section since you think that this might be a problem. neotu.com site is in progress. When completed this site will provide a list by designers of photographs of the pieces that Neotu has shown and/or manufactured. That will be more than 1000 photographs organized as a data base. The site will provide also as PDF all the catalogues of Neotu from 1984 to 2001.--Neoge (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased that Neoge is considering ways of improving the article, and his direction sounds reasonable. Before we close this discussion, the current contents of the article still seem to be over-promotional, and I do not believe it should be kept unless the unhelpful lists of exhibits are greatly reduced. I invite Neoge to say if he would agree to such shortening. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of the exhibits is short and was not finished... Between 1984 to 2001 Neotu uses to have at least 6 shows a year only for the Gallery in Paris. Just make the math. I though that was a interesting information to bring to the public in this Encyclopedia. But if "everyone" there thinks that this list of exhibits has no interest, is too long or whatever, I am ready to delete it. I am giving up. I do not know who I am talking to. Everyday there is a interlocutor who has a new point of view, a new suggestion... So I am really lost. I invite you, if you have not read already this novel by Franz Kafka The Castle (novel) to read it. I have this feeling of being "K." the protagonist of the novel who "struggles to gain access to the mysterious authorities of a castle who govern the village where he wants to work"... Please try to read this book. The reading might reveal you how sounds the "Wikipedia bureaucracy" for a novice arriving in your "Castle". Yours --Neoge (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think we are as good as Kafka, you do us honor! There is an ongoing problem in creating good articles about artistic topics, perhaps since the art world is not yet comfortable with the internet. You've tried to add an article that seems to us promotional (which is why it arrived here at WP:COIN). Your work could be redeemed if it were truly informative, which it is not. There are no pictures of actual furniture in the material you've added! You cite many exhibit catalogs that are probably not real publications, since they can't be ordered from a publisher. The whole article seems like a tease, because it claims that this is an important gallery, but we have no idea why our readers should care. If you have the rights for any pictures, and are willing to clear them through our system, I could work with you on that. Our copyright rules are quite serious, and do require some patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a relevant WikiProject? Neoge, could you perhaps post references for your gallery there and ask somebody else to write about it. Your chance of success will be improved if you help Wikipedia by writing about other art topics that interest you. Jehochman ^Talk 09:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably WikiProject Visual arts; I've posted a note there.

BTW, I've restored the standard COI tag and added an Expert tag. The point of such tags is allow people who might help to find articles with the tagged problems. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To EdJohnson I did not make any comparison between Wikipedia and Franz Kafka. The only comparison was between K. (the protagonist of the novel "The Castle" by F. Kafka) and myself who feels as K. struggling with Mysterious Authorities. Regarding the bibliography that I provide: I give 90% of the ISBN. If you have time please check them. The books are real and not from a library found on Second Life. If you are curious about the books you can order them from Amazon or Alibris etc.. you can also consult Google Books just put Neotu in the search, you can also go the Library of the University of Michigan which has a lot of books and publications regarding Neotu. This link Pompidou Center la galerie Neotu" is it real? Or is it something born in my imagination? I am afraid that "Wikipedia bureaucracy" is very suspicious when something new (artistic topics for ex) is brought to it and believe me I feel very comfortable with the Internet. Yes I will put some pictures of the furniture online when I know how to do. But do you really think that pictures are more real than writings, references or books? I am also surprise that you write and doubt that "our readers should care" about Neotu. Do you know so precisely "your readers" to know so exactly what they are looking for? If think that the interest of Wikipedia is to bring a lot of information regarding different fields which are not common or trivial subjects. This is the real WEALTH of this Encyclopedia. --Neoge (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To Jehochman: there is some one who is an expert of Neotu. Her name is Ms Constance Rubini. She works at the Decorative Art Museum in Paris. She just wrote an long article in AZIMUTS#29 - ISBN:9782912808073 regarding Neotu. But I am not sure that this person is familiar with Wikipedia and can add something in the article. Nevertheless her book is for me an excellent source of information. --Neoge (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

NewUrbanMale.com

Resolved

 – red ink means it's been deleted

• NewUrbanMale.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article was only edited by 1 person and the tone of the article suggests advertising. In fact, I tagged one section of the article as copyright infringment as it was directly copied from the company's site.Cahk (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If the section is copyvio and was added by one person at one time, then its possible to remove it all at once. If the entire article is copyvio, it can be speedied. Themfromspace (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Veecort and ITT Technical Institute

• User:Veecort
• ITT Technical Institute

Veecort is an editor with an established vendetta against the school ITT Tech. His opinion on it is clearly stated on his userpage. He also runs appears to be affiliated with the anti-ITT tech message board "ItTakesTime.com" and has repeatedly linked it on the article's talk page. Editors disagreeing with him are accused of being "company shills" and "pitcher plants". See also this edit, which contains all the above described behaviors, and this edit demonstrates his attitude/behavior about the school. McJeff (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

user Cathorserobot, website speakaboos.com

Resolved

 – User self-reverted links, website link can be dealt with on its pagetedder (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Cathorserobot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - apparently affiliated with site/entry Speakaboos.com, has been adding external and internal links across many celeb pages. (a) is Speakaboos notable, (b) are the entries notable, (c) should they be reverted due to NPOV or left alone because of notability? tedder (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am the user in question here. Wanted to explain that I was unaware of how specific the conditions were for external links. I saw a variety of different links to interviews and videos of various works by the actors whose pages I posted on, and similarly thought users would be interested in their work for Speakaboos. I have since undone these external links. As for Speakaboos, I believe it is very notable as a new children's website and I believe that the article is well-cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathorserobot (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a note to your talk page pointing to a guide for adding ISBN links to include book references in articles. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I consider this resolved- the user has replied and is aware of COI now. Notability of Speakaboos can be taken care of on its page. tedder (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

POV content by suicide victims father

Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The parents of two of the suicides at Deepcut have for some time been making POV insertions in this article using either IP contributions or single purpose accounts. One of these Des James (talk · contribs) has now created an explicit account with the declared intention to reflect accurately the facts as they stand.

I have previously sought to identify the risks here and have this morning been more explicit.

I would be grateful for some other eyes on the article.

ALR (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A second new account is now inserting significant POV material in the section about another of the suicides. Vonny2005 (talk · contribs)

ALR (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Difficult. Obviously he deserves the utmost sympathy (and you've handled it extremely diplomatically so far): but when you put together a major COI, original research, unjustified removal of sourced content, borderline personal attacks [16] ("ALR should declare his/her obsession with this case"), assumption of bad faith [17] and accusations of bias [18], it is getting to cluebat time. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look over it.

ALR (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the edits have stopped for the moment. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone

Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This section is sourced entirely by forum posts on a fansite by DrSturm (talk · contribs) who is also a poster on those forums.Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please note discussion at WT:VG on this. -- Sabre (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Suburban Express

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

Obviously COIage going on here, as admitted in the article's AFD, along with perceived sockpuppetry and persistent editwarring. There has also been a benign legal threat made on the article's page, which was reported to ANI (however, may have been in error). MuZemike (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fulcrum Gallery etc

• Actual Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Terry Fugate-Wilcox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fulcrum Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fvlcrvm (talk · contribs)

Sorry to bring this back here: see previous WP:COIN#Terry Fugate-Wilcox.

Fvlcrvm has self-identified as Valerie Shakespeare, wife of Terry Fugate-Wilcox and founder of the Fulcrum Gallery. Previous WP:COIN discussions were settled seemingly amicably (because of her direct knowledge she was given unusual leeway in directly editing these articles). However, just having read the articles prior to an attempt at cleanup, I'm not sure it's working: she's main editor on all three to an extent that's well outside WP:COI's "avoid, or exercise great caution", and I'm not comfortable with the general relationship to Wikipedia (writing one's own Wikipedia articles, then using them as external sources elsewhere - see About us).

Another new element is what looks like considerable promotion-via-citation (as well as use as a major source) of an unpublished memoir It's the Artist's Life for me!. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not write either the article on Fugate-Wilcox or the article on Actual Art. I did write the article on Fulcrum, because the gallery was of some significance, in it's day, has been closed for nearly 7 years, and was referred to in several other articles in Wikipedia about artists, (that I had nothing to do with writing, either) but with no further information or reference. The new info I added to Fulcrum, was about how the name came to be, which I found in an old article, from the early '90's. Since there was so much confusion about the name, early on, I thought it would be good to include. The other thing I add, (which only I CAN add), is photos, because only I hold the rights to same. I think photos are extremely important in articles, especially about art. Not only do they make the articles interesting but make abstract descriptions of difficult imagery, easy to understand.

I have been extremely diligent about using only factual material from verifiable sources, avoiding opinions & generally trying to follow wiki guidelines.

As for referencing Wikipedia, as a way to learn more about Tery, as an artist; or to learn more about me, as a person who once ran a gallery in SoHo, I did not know that was prohibited. I thought refering people to Wikipedia was a good thing. I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia, & refer people to it constantly, not just for art, but for information on a wide range of subjects.Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not write either the article on Fugate-Wilcox or the article on Actual Art.

Errm, you created the Actual Art here and have been its main editor, and wrote the bulk of the content for the TFW article since this Jan 2008 edit. It's not sufficient that sources be verifiable - it needs to be seen that they're being put together in a neutral manner. It's not you personally I don't trust; it's that I don't trust the dynamic of anyone, especially anyone in an essentially promotional line of work, playing such a major role in collation of material about themselves. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we actually have some testicles about this? There's an increasing tendency here to let artists who won't take the hint just go ahead and edit their own articles. Does WP:COI apply or not? It seems to me completely unacceptable that Fvlcrvm is continuing, even after COI warnings, is still majorly editing articles about her gallery and husband. If there's no censure about this, we might as well scrap COI guidelines. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Got those pages on my watchlist. I'll do my best to prevent COIcreep from taking over. Themfromspace (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up on CJ Follini

This was bought to my attention while reviewing the article's AFD. This article has been extensively edited by the subject. I pointed this out in the AFD discussion, tagged the article with {{autobiography}}, and posted my concerns on the talk page. After this, editing switched to another account with no other edits besides this article.

Since the AFD was closed "keep" (it really couldn't have been closed otherwise) what it needs at this point is more eyes on it and the attention of a few more uninvolved editors. Besides the taggers, the article is only being edited by SPAs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Glover

• Andrew Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - [19] removal of cited content by Andrew Glover (talk · contribs), repeated after request on talk page to note WP:COI and WP:Autobiography. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to see what they say at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - I've cross-posted it there. That aspect looks borderline to me, as he may be within his rights to remove it as contentious and unreliably-sourced (i.e. it's not corroborated so far in newspapers other than the tabloid Mirror).

However, the material on works and style added by User:Andrew Glover looks a distinctly peacock-y synthesis. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bennett Lebow

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

The following users: 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3, against whom a sockpuppet report has additionally been filed, appear, based upon their postings, to be affilated with at least some of the companies: Vector, New Valley; and also Mr. Bennett Lebow, whom they have directed their remarks toward. It is my BELIEF, based upon the following evidence, that the above user(s) are, as mentioned before, affiliated with this person and these companies, and are merely using Wikipedia as the equivalent of a "public relations brochure" and means to bolster the image of at least Mr. Lebow, as is evidenced by the other investigations that have been requested.

Please note that nearly all of the remarks made by 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3 as noted in their contributions are directed to the above executive and the affiliated companies: Mr. Lebow, New Valley, Vector, and Liggett. Given that these are not "popular" subjects, it is extremely unlikely that an editor without a conflict of interest as noted above would make these remarks.

I believe that the remarks that I have made, that have continually been deleted by all three of the above users, should be locked and made permanent, especially in view of the fact that other Wikipedians are essentially attempting to form a consensus by reverting to my edits; and also the fact that even Kansas7474 has admitted they are accurately sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alygx026 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The filing user here is extremly anxious to return to edit the page which I protected due to his edit waring with these possible COI's. There is a checkuser case pending which will likely clear all of this up. I do not see that a SSP case has been filed, at least it is not showing when I look. JodyB _talk 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My SSP was filed yesterday, although it was not properly saved (this is the first time I have done this) so I refiled it today.

Alygx026 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:BILLmesitrell.jpg / User:Lumal

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

Per Admin suggestion I am re-posting this here. I found Image:BILLmesitrell.jpg and tagged the image {{di-no source}} as it is a collage of images. But the image is sort of like a wallpaper and has a website URL on it that takes you too Money Well Spent, which appears to be a marketing business. It is not a website about the subject of the image, but this is where it gets more interesting. The site is very hard to navigate but I stumbled upon this page which contains the statement "WORLDWIDE "BRAND NAME" PROMOTIONS". This same page also contains a link that says: "Our WIKIpedia edits contributions" which, when clicked, takes a person to Special:Contributions/Lumal, who is the uploader of the image. This seems to imply that working on Wikiepedia articles is a service they offer and leads me to believe that the image is a somewhat disguised advertisement. FYI the image is used in the Bill Meistrell article. And for the hell of it I dug a bit more and came across one of his clients - Bill Meistrell. If you take a look at this website you will find links to Body Glove, Bill Meistrell and a link that did go to an article on Dive N' Surf but now seems to be a part of the Redondo Beach article. A photo in this article shows Dive N' Surf and contains with a link to the Dive-n-Surf website, which is another client, and Image:DIVEnSURFlogo.jpg also has the moneywellspent.com watermark. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User Lumal's primary activities on Wikipedia promote his websites lumal.com and moneywellspent.com, his clients, and the services he offers on those websites. He seems not to see a clear distinction between a free encyclopedia and a free webhosting service. His user page duplicates content from lumal.com and promotes it.

From http://www.lumal.com/fees.html:

I or we manage websites as publicity startiing [sic] @ $700 per year

We generate content as bait for publicity starting @ $250

We organize a variety of systems to maximize exposure 4 our customers. EA priced separately and as groups starting @ $100 EA

We rank phrases & keywords in the largest search monsters roaming the universe starting @ $1500

The username violates Username policy#Company/group names policy. For starters, I'll post* on Usernames for administrator attention. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)   (done)*

Y Blocked. The Helpful One 23:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that was appropriate (I posted {{Uw-spamublock}} notices in Lumal's userspace).

Content added to the enclopedia from the Lumal account still needs attention and perhaps removal as Soundvisions1 posted above, e.g. promotional articles, images with embedded promotional website urls / watermarks, etc. Some should be speedied, some XfDed. — Athaenara ✉ 02:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ThanksForLettingAllUsernamesBeTaken and MikeOS

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

Obvious COI as noted on the user's userpage. User has taken extreme ownership in reaction to the article possibly being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MikeOS. MuZemike (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

Reporting this to BLPN and COIN.

An article about a state senator is the subject of an extended edit war by two IPs. One is pushing a very favorible POV version of the page, another is pushing a fairly negative POV version. From the edit comments it appears quite possible that the IPs are the subject himself, and one of his political opponents. Short semi protections have done little to stop the warring, so I've semi-ed it for a month this time. But I suspect that'll not be much of a long term solution either. Could really use additional eyes on this, and maybe someone skilled in coming up with some sort of NPOV middle ground version. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Luisa Fortes da Cunha

• Luisa Fortes da Cunha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Luisafcunha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blatant autobiography. I tagged the article half to death, and cautioned the creator at User talk:Luisafcunha. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it should go to AfD? Themfromspace (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition

The tag on the sacred scriptures bethel edition page says: "If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. ". Anyone who is familiar with this Bible it seems has their edits reversed by User:Jayjg who is supposed to be an administrater. Whenever anyone tries to talk to the admin they are ignored, and told to talk on the page of the article in which it is concerned: "Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.". Those who have talked about improving the article are ignored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sacred_Scriptures_Bethel_Edition. And then the few people who have tried to make good edits improving the page have been either banned or had their edits reversed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacred_Scriptures_Bethel_Edition&action=history

How can we improve articles, if administraters themselves who no little to nothing about a subject, refuse to allow them to be improved? Can swift action be taken please against what I perceive as administrater abuse? 83.100.146.147 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)