User talk:009o9

March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA in downtown LA

LA Meetup: March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the Museum of Contemporary Art in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday, March 9, 2014 from 11 am to 6 pm! This event is in collaboration with MOCA and the arts collective East of Borneo and aims to improve coverage of LA art since the 1980s. (Even if contemporary art isn't your thing, you're welcome to join too!) Please RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! User:Calliopejen1 (talk) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Wikiclaus' cheer !

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

"Record"

You wrote, " It was User:Richhoncho who took a very narrow definition of the word "record" in this discussion. He was reading "record" in the context of a vinyl LP is slang (record album)." I have to say I still say a song is a song and the method of delivery is not the song. If you can't understand that very basic concept... --Richhoncho (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Richhoncho Here is the problem I'm having with your logic, none of the following can occur if the song has not been recorded:

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

(If the Songs section was once about unrecorded songs, it isn't anymore.)

In addition to the three line-items above, you also cannot get an album review done on unrecorded music, nor release an unrecorded single. Most of the verbiage in NSONGS belongs nested within the Recordings section. There is absolutely no reason why a recorded song should not fall under the same SEVEN line-items in the Recordings section, not the just THREE in NSONGS (which 2 are duplicates anyway).

Additionally, just because a song does not get released as a single, does not mean that it did not become notable. The way the guideline is currently written, only singles and albums can be notable without charting. There are tons of notable B-Sides that never got radio spins that are considered the best cut on the album etc.

Have a look at what I am doing here: User:009o9/Draft NSONGS RFC If you think we need a section called "Unrecorded songs" let's work on it. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you are wasting your time and I can find other ways to waste mine. But I will give you a thought or two - The concept of charting is misleading, it means a song that reaches #146 in the nowhere chart is considered "notable" even though there are no RS (other than the chart), no information, and nothing about "the song." A further problem with recordings are those songs created and passed from performer to performer, so although there is no specific recording that is notable, the song most certainly is i.e. much of the blues cannon, folk songs, child ballads etc etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Richhoncho: Notability certainly has a property that involves longevity, but Wikipedia also requires that reliable sources attach some significance to the song. I don't think that any amount of massaging the guideline is going to change the fact that nobody is writing about it. Why don't you become the reliable source and write about it yourself?

Concerning recorded music, which is realistically what we are dealing with here, I don't understand your resistance. The way the Wikipedia is today, you have to establish notability with tons of references to get through AfC. I've seen declines with 30 good references. Sorry if this has been a waste of your time, I use AfC on a regular basis and sometimes get some really oddball AfDs. The project guidelines are so poorly written and disorganized that it is worth my time to try to clean them up, rather than go through the same nonsense in AfC forever. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot. A song may become notable because of a recording, but it is still the song that is notable. That's why you are wasting time. Goodbye. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited H-1B visa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Justice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wendy Newman (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wendy Newman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Muzzle Awards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Amherst, Clemson, Northwestern, Emory and Hamilton College

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. I have posted this on WP:COIN so that others can provide their opinion. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the GoDigital Media Group page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

PAID policy and COI guideline

hi 009o9, I work on Conflict of Interest issues here in Wikipedia and my attention was called to your work here by the posting at COIN. I've read your User page. You are aware of what PAID and COI say, with regard to disclosure. That's great. You do not seem to be paying to the part of the COI guideline that says:

• You are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles.
• You may propose changes by using the {{request edit}} template on talk pages.
• You may propose changes on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard.
• Your proposals may or may not be acted upon.
• If you are being paid to edit, please respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise; see PAYTALK.

Would you please comment on that? I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes, I endeavor to follow the guideline at WP:COIADVICE and do very minimal editing in the article space, unfortunately COIADVICE does not address reverting subjective/hostile/uninformed edits, nor WP:STEWARDSHIP. I've added my disclosures to my talk page, my signature and the affected pages, far beyond the Foundation's guidance. Per WP:SOCK I am not allowed to have an alternate account to segregate my paid editing from my volunteer editing, so the prejudice against COI editors often bleeds over to the voluntary side in retribution.

As for AfD discussions etc., I have an ideology, not a COI, I'm for the inclusion of RS corporate articles. The editor in question, from her history here in COIN, appears to be against corporate articles. I feel I have no COI in these matters, unless you want to start silencing (one side of) political ideologies within administrative discussions too.

I did a search the other day to see who is using the PAID template, there are three of us using it on more than one article. All of the others appear to be single use accounts. (So the implementation of the Foundation's new policy has been a complete failure here IMHO.) I had a friend who was blackhat editing, I could not convince him to go brightline, and at this point, it is hard to blame him. Regardless of my voluntary works, it's a lot like being a second-class citizen and then being told limit your responses to the condition. Regards 009o9^Disclosure(Talk)

It can be rough to be on the "bright side" and I appreciate you making that choice. Ultimately what paid editors do here, comes down to if they want to feel sneaky and see how much they can get away, or be open and see how much crap they can put up with. Personal ethics, really.

fwiw having a chip on your shoulder that the policy sucks doesn't much help you but that is of course your decision to broadcast that. I find that in business the less drama, the better. Same thing with my editing here.

To be clear the idea of not editing directly is so that there is peer review to check for bias. It's how most publishing works - where you have a publisher, editor, and for academic stuff actual peer review between the author and publication or their work. Here in WP editing is unmediated - no publisher or editor or peer review between a conflicted editor and the article. So we ask conflicted editors to submit to peer review. Hard for the ego, for sure, and makes getting paid less efficient, for sure. But protects the integrity of Wikipedia, the reputation of the client, and the reputation of the editor. I have been working with a few paid editors to improve their proposals so that their proposals can be implemented swiftly. Takes time for people to understand what actually good Wikipedia editing is, which is not like any other kind of writing I am aware of.

About the classes of direct editing you identify. Direct STEWARDSHIP is not an option for paid editors on articles they are paid to work on. Reverting vandalism (actual vandalism) is fine of course. Ditto noncontroversial (broadly defined) factual changes - simple stuff like changing a company's address when they move - is fine too. I hope you are not going past those two kinds of direct editing on articles where you are paid.

some data.

So.. here are your contribs to the GoDigital Media Group; you have 132 edits to that article; the next highest is Lemongirl with 16 and she just arrived there.

here are your edits to GoDigital; in edit count, that article is dominated by two editors who clearly worked for/were paid by them, Heisenberg123 and Michigangurl123 who I reckon are the same person. You are third, right behind them.

This is not where articles should be if folks are following the COI guideline.

Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:Yes, it is a bit frustrating, but if I back down all the time, I will be legislated out of existence. I understand the writing process, proposal writing and tech manuals. Knowing some non combative reviewers would be great. The paid "stigma" comes from a just a few editors, but that stigma also eliminates the possibility of getting an article review or edit request granted, especially by other paid editors. Basically, that leaves AfC and absolutely nothing for edit requests.

Raw data aside, most of those edits to GoDigital Media Group, are from when the article was in my userspace, it was originally ContentBridge, which was then an AfD merge to the parent GoDigital Media Group. Since the merge, the article has always been an ill-fit. I was hired to do ContentBridge and the project quickly exploded into various other entities. For the separate GoDigital article and a few others, I think I was using edit summaries to declare (Foundation guidance) as the Wikipedia guidance had not been written yet.

What do you think of my proposal for the GDMG article User:009o9/Draft GDMG, the infoboxes are really helpful for those non-controversial edits that you and I agree are fine. What's her name has virtually no article creation history, so virtually everything to her appears to be advertising. Certainly nothing that falls within the "When to use" guidance on Template:Advert. Cheers 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 09:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll be happy to look at your proposal in a bit but I try not to mix content discussions with COI management discussions as it gets too messy. When we are done, sure.

I do understand that the not-editing-directly mode is very inefficient, but that's the deal here; those are the rules of the game you have sat down to play. If you want to wear the white hat you have to go all the way. I am very aware that directly editing gets your client pleased quicker and of course gets you paid quicker but that the direct editing itself creates more friction and harms your reputation here long term... if you can't be trusted to follow the guideline then folks get suspicious and want to follow you around to check; it becomes a nasty feedback loop. Do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That's one of the problems with Project guidance, it is not our duty to inform other editors that the page contains COI writing, it is our duty to inform the reader. The guidance does nothing in that regard. I have a much more effective way to deal with that here User:009o9#Coexistence_proposal. I did propose during the Foundation discussions, I guess is never got legs because it doesn't punish the editor enough.

I was in the middle of filling out an ANI complaint on Lemongirl942 for stalking, I guess I'll just revert that second instance and take it up in the morning. Nice chatting with you. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 09:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, i don't know that it behooves you to chafe at the bit; if you were rock solid in compliance you would have more solid ground but it is pretty clear that you been coloring outside the lines. I don't think drama helps you. And fwiw, the real peer review comes from other editors; our goal is to present readers with NPOV content and COI management "within house" is our means to do that. So most of the tagging is directed to other editors by intent. We only deploy the article COI tag if we can't persuade people to comply with the COI guideline and the article is so biased and influenced by conflicted editing that we need to warn readers.

Speaking of avoiding drama, good to hear that you decided to not file the ANI complaint; I don't reckon that would be good for anyone.

It is not clear to me where this discussion stands. Do you intend to not edit directly going forward? I am looking for that assurance. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been coloring since before there were lines, so that needs to be taken into consideration. Your question is too broad, "Do you intend to not edit directly going forward?" Especially if you are here is some sort of administrative capacity. Would you please restate it? 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The rules of the game change as one goes. Do you intend to not edit directly going forward on content you are paid to work on? That is the question. (of course where you are a volunteer it is a different story) Jytdog (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

To include the guidance per WP:COIADVICE, which we both understand is dynamic, Yes, to that question. Thanks for restating, there's a lot of reading comprehension problems around here and I don't want to get bitten later. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Great thanks for answering. A last thing. Lemongirl followed you, so you decided to follow her. I hope you both knock that off; that ANI would have boomeranged on you even if you did bring her down. Drama helps nobody.

Now about your draft article. You are rewriting the existing GoDigital Media Group article I take it? Jytdog (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, I was tempted to Prod a couple of her articles but resisted. The AfD thing really was a fluke, I thought the Twinkle red Vandalism link meant that she had reported an edit as vandalism, I clicked one to see why. I never acted on anything she has in article space from her edit list. AfC and AfD on the other hand is fair game, but I refrain from declines and deletes considering my COI -- I.e., the appearance of creating more demand by declining/deleting.

On the draft article, I'm restoring some of the stuff that she pruned, a new infobox, an award and a merger paragraph that has been sitting around since October. Somebody did some pruning on the live article, nothing serious, but I should update the draft. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Upon review, I don't agree with the pruning of the WSJ reference and technical verbiage belongs in a technical article. I don't remember why it was there, but the removal is a subjective drive by. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Digipas Usa. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC note

Per WP:RFC, you need to add your signature following the concise and neutral statement of the proposal or question. The RfC bot will copy the text up to and including that signature to the RfC listing page. I would suggest you add two signatures: One immediately following your "Subject" line, and another at the end of the "lead". ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks, got it.

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Interfering at COIN

So about this. The last person who started to interfere with my COI work was topic banned from discussing COI matters in Wikipedia. I suggest you think twice about continuing to do that. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Per the discussion and my full explanation here, you have been blocked for an indifinite period of time. If an admin wants to craft a set of restrictions and consider an unblock at some time in the future, they are welcome to without my prior permission. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• I received a notification that you sent an email, although I haven't received it yet. For the record, unless the information you are sending is related to privacy issues, I strongly prefer to have all communications here on your talk page, so that others may participate or at least witness. I'm happy to answer any questions regarding my actions as per WP:ADMINACCT but note that I'm not likely to enter tangential discussions that are not directly related to my actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I wasn't aware I could post to my talk page. The message is pretty much, see WP:NOTNOTHERE

• Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines
• Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner

I will be giving this a couple of days thought, it's obvious that I won't be able to do volunteer editing (probably 70%) and paid editing. 100% of my concerns raised at the Foundation's RfC two years ago have been realized, with the exception that I don't see a disclosed paid contributor category yet, for easier prejudice to the volunteered content. I honestly don't care about the result of the guideline discussions, as long they result in a representation of the current (emerging) consensus. Editors, through no fault of their own are wasting time writing articles that can never be published, the (dated) guidelines give them too much optimism. Nobody was speaking from the alternate pov, they are too scared to death to even answer an edit request. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 15:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• My block isn't about my opinion. In fact, I started as a COI editor and think our current guidelines are ridiculously strict as to be unenforceable, but the particular issues I have didn't come into play in this case. It was a reading of consensus at the discussion regarding your overall behavior. The written policy is not the force that drives us to act, consensus is. The written policy is merely a reflection of what current community wide consensus is. That trumps the written word every time, per the 5 Pillars. Take a few days, appeal the block, suggest some restrictions that will satisfy the concerns addressed. As long as you do that, I will not interfere in your unblock, and no admin needs to ask my permission to unblock you, using any restrictions they see fit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@@Dennis Brown: Well, the 5 Pillars doesn't appear to say that anymore, a lot like a skyscraper built on a foundation of sand, ins't it?oldid Can't even cite the shortcuts, because guidance documents get edited so frequently. Don't bother trying to find the diff, I'll take your word for it. Peace 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 16:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording. Granted, the Pillars are merely an essay but they do reflect the consensus of editors, and again, consensus trumps written policy. Case in point: you can use consensus to change the written policy, but you can't use the written policy to change consensus. It is a weird system, unlike any I've worked in before, but it is the system we have in place, and it was in place before I began over 10 years ago. My job is to represent the community consensus in my actions when using the tools, nothing more, nothing less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Catch22, the new editor is indoctrinated on the guidelines, this laissez-faire consensus model kind of creates a condition that includes retroactive sanctions. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 22:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You aren't new, we have admin with fewer edits and tenure. We don't have retroactive sanctions (ie: ex post facto) but an admin or the community can look at the totality of the editor's history to determine the likelihood that problems will persist and if the editor can be taken at their word when they offer to change behavior. This is no different than the sentencing phase consideration of mitigating factors in a court of law, although this is no court of law. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

009o9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The problem appears to be resolved with this edit.09:38, 5 June 2016 As long as the consensus is published in conspicuous (customer facing) areas, I've always been happy to oblige. Resolving the guidance with the emerging consensus is all I was asking for anyway. I'm assuming that participating in talk page discussions and RfDs are still acceptable, but BRD is unacceptable in guidance areas? While we are at it, does the admonishment in WP:COI include voting in COIN and AfD discussions? How are we to handle AfC volunteer efforts and and answering Edit Requests? Perhaps we should get this all ironed out now. Pinging ANI closing editor @Dennis Brown: 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 19:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I came to the same conclusion as Dennis after reading the ANI complaint. The boomerang was well-warranted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• As my role was simply reading consensus and implementing the will of the community, I will refrain from commenting on the merits that led to the block, letting the ANI discussion speak for itself. I have no opinion regarding whatever any reviewing admin decides. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and understood Dennis, I provided as courtesy notification and for convenience to the reviewing admin. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 19:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

009o9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In addition to the addition to the new guidance as noted above,[1] is the following: On May 6, 2016, Jytdog, the self-proclaimed 15 years real world experience in COI editor (policing?),[2] imposed his "management style,"[3] in a discussion on my talk page and stated exactly what was expected of me,[4] I specifically asked him to restate our understanding, before agreeing, which included only the articles I am paid to work on, and this confirmed my understanding of policy. My signature is an additional declaration -- even beyond the Wikipedia Project's guidelines. Thus, I declare where I am volunteering in an additional note and allow my paid status to be presumed everywhere else. The following exchange initiated from my having to revert another COIN editor, to stop tagging and pruning a declared paid work and get her to come to the talk page.

It is not clear to me where this discussion stands. Do you intend to not edit directly going forward? I am looking for that assurance. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been coloring since before there were lines, so that needs to be taken into consideration. Your question is too broad, "Do you intend to not edit directly going forward?" Especially if you are here is some sort of administrative capacity. Would you please restate it? 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The rules of the game change as one goes. Do you intend to not edit directly going forward on content you are paid to work on? That is the question. (of course where you are a volunteer it is a different story) Jytdog (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

To include the guidance per WP:COIADVICE, which we both understand is dynamic, Yes, to that question. Thanks for restating, there's a lot of reading comprehension problems around here and I don't want to get bitten later.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Do you intend to not edit directly going forward on content you are paid to work on?" is very concise. I write documents, suitable for the Wikipedia for a set dollar amount and limit my editing to WP:COIADVICE thereafter. Everything else I do here is voluntary, and when there is an COI on unpaid works, I've disclosed that too.[5]

• Here are my (article space) edits for May 6, 2016, going forward, I added categories to a paid article, so 1 paid edit completely non controversial.[6]
• Here are my WP space edits from May 6, 2016, going forward.[7]
• Template space edits for May 6, 2016, going forward, [8]
• Help space edits for May 6, 2016. [9]

With Jytdog's addition to the Help page curation, I found my involvement there unproductive and started an RfC to promote WP:TAGGING to Guideline, so the Help page could (in theory) refer to the long standing consensus. I strongly disagree with Jytdog that COI, in practice, should be widened to alumni, especially if it includes the same restrictions that paid editors are subject to,[[10]] my objection to Jytdog's attempt to widen the COI guidance[11] was met with this threat. [12] This was the impetus that motivated me to file the ANI against Jytdog, which remained open for six hours.[13]

As I have been advised that consensus is everything and the policies and guidelines, relative window dressing, I note that all but one of the voters in the ANI are also active in WP:COIN, and my vote-stacking concerns appear to have gone unheard.[14] I have a list of over 100 of Jytdog's new "friends" who might be interested in participating.

• MSJapan (talk · contribs) COIN participation
• David Gerard (talk · contribs) COIN participation
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) (commented did not vote -- no COIN participation history)COIN participation
• Bishonen (talk · contribs) COIN participation
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) (no COIN participation history) COIN participation
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs) COIN participation
• Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs)COIN participation
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) COIN participation

I also note that the Wikipedia Project, with two years to do so, is still not in compliance with the Wikimedia Foundation's TOU.[15] As such, Jytdog's un-elected status gives him no license to interfere matters with individual editors where the Wikipedia project is not in compliance -- again, for two years now.

• • "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies|alternative disclosure policy page."[16]

The formation of this paid editing policy and related widening COI of implications (like alumni for instance), should be open to all interested parties, not just a self proclaimed few "experts." 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 00:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. This decision was based on a strong consensus that your edits were disruptive. If you make another unblock request please make it much shorter and address the concerns of the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 00:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reformatted my text for readability009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 01:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Speedy deletion nomination of User:009o9/Never Gonna Be the Same Again

A tag has been placed on User:009o9/Never Gonna Be the Same Again requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Userfied draft being used as a BLUDGEON; creator is now indef blocked.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MSJapan (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• I declined this speedy deletion, with a full rationale provided on MSJapan's talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: go ahead and let them to through, I was going to delete them anyway. Thanks!009o9^Disclosure(Talk)

Reference errors on 4 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Sound of Music (soundtrack) page, your edit caused a URL error (help) and an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk?

If you want to discuss what has happened I would be open to that. I don't consider you any kind of "enemy". Can do that via email or skype if you like. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: No let's do this here, what have you got in mind? I see my conduct as pretty reasonable, and I was always the one to disengage as far as I can recall. My conduct is pretty much described in WP:NOTNOTHERE particularly:

• Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines
• Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner

Again, per the Foundation's TOU, paid and related COI editing discussions are very much an open RfC, according to M:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies. I seem to only be having a problem coloring within the lines when you move them and I can't read the new guidance everyday. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 02:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is what you have already said. I was asking if you wanted to actually discuss what has happened. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

In what context, the block? Our difference in ideology? The friction between us? I come from a contracts background, which is why I'm a stickler on official documents and correspondence. I don't have a camera, so Skype is kind of pointless for me. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 02:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC) @Jytdog: Pinging, I don't know if you are watching this page.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 02:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I come from a business perspective and my focus at work is the relationship and the parties' goals; for contracts I keep lawyers on a tight leash, as they both destroy deals and waste everybody's time and money if you give them too much leash - they'll try to wrangle advantage out of every last thing instead of dealing with major risks and trying to ensure that the contract expresses the understanding of the parties. And contracts always get amended as the needs of the parties change or get clarified as things develop; there is always stuff that comes up that nobody thought that much about when the contract was first negotiated and signed.

That is even more true here in Wikipedia. There is little that is new under the sun here with so many people and so many years, but new things come up from time to time and the consensus of the community does move, like a tide or a glacier.

I'm open to discussing whatever you like - we can do that here; what I was offering otherwise was talking (not videoconferencing) over skype or google's talking thing, each of which preserve anonymity.

I don't see that much tension between us interpersonally and we actually agree on a lot. You've kind of grandstanded a lot of claims about me in your response at COIN and your ANI; I don't know (and I really don't) if there is anything you want to actually hear about from me related to any of that. I guess what I am interested to hear from you, is what you think has happened here. How you would answer the question, Why are you indeffed? But that is what I am interested in - I'll be open to talking about what ever you like. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been my experience in contracts, that both parties must agree to contractual changes, on items like TOUs, the other party is actively notified, changing the text on a webpage is generally not binding.

Basically, what happened here is Singaporegirl942, or whatever her name was, went to work on one of my problematic articles, once she was satisfied with her handiwork, she would nominate it for deletion. I don't think she was prepared for somebody who would actually fight back. Granted the article had problems, but when you are precluded from editing, the problems cannot be fixed, only put off with an edit request. The end of the road was clearly in sight (tightening of sanctions), no reason not to fight back and no reason to volunteer my expertise under these conditions.

At this point, I think the two ideologies are not compatible, I proposed a project split today, "Paid editing TOU, two year anniversary". 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 06:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Being at Wikipedia is not a two party agreement. It is an agreement between each editor and the rest of the community. We are ultimately governed by consensus, not written policy/guideline. It is strange to me that you associate our interaction with what happened with Lemongirl. I didn't agree at all with what she was doing on the jukebox article and nothing I said to you right after that, or any time after that, had anything to do with that. I'll check out your proposal on meta. Jytdog (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No, she went after GDMG first, the corporate article that was merged by DGG in AfD. The article was supposed to be about ContentBridge (deemed notable, but not enough I guess), which is why there were weak references about the other topics. I guess we could get into a consensus war, I found over a hundred editors that you imposed upon just this year, I'm sure I could find a few hundred more by looking at other COIN editor's histories, but I think splitting the project is a more productive solution. Your group doesn't want these articles, so let's put them under a sister project does. (BTW: Here's the Wikipedia TOU it doesn't contain the word "consensus" AND this is where I am relinquishing my copyright, this is very much a two-party agreement.) 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 07:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a fact. The ToU obligate users to follow the policies and guidelines of any project they edit, and in en-wiki, WP:CONSENSUS is The foundational policy. The. And you are completely deaf to it and don't understand it (the "consensus war" thing is just.. bizarre). And if you read the WP:PAG policy, you will see that PAG change per consensus.

The consensus in the community (if that is what you call "my group") is that paid editing is problematic and must be managed. There is a hardcore wing that is dead opposed to it (of which I am not a part) and there is a hardcore wing opposed to any effort to consider contributor at all and would rather that people focus 100% on content (I understand and respect that view but don't agree 100% with it). The mainstream view in the community has been sensitized by the many paid editing scandals that have tarnished WP's reputation. If you are not aware of them, read Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. On top of that, the mainstream view everywhere is that conflicts of interest need to be managed, and especially so in any knowledge-producing organization. It is 2016, 009o9, and the public is well aware of the risk of commercial interests influencing things presented to them as neutral. That genie is out of the bottle. People come here to learn and they expect articles to actually be neutral and the community knows that and wants paid editing managed. That is what I help with, here in Wikipedia.

Anyway, I was hoping to talk and build a relationship with you, but it is clear that you are focused on something transactional/litigious and that is not of interest to me. I won't be responding here further. Good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: No, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PAG, while amiable, are Wikipedia project guidance. It is also not the Foundation's (written) policy to manage COI, the requirement is to only disclose it -- if that disclosure did not come with other burdens prescribed by you and your friends, most people would willingly disclose. Nobody with half a brain expects a Wikipedia article to be neutral at any given time, it's a dynamic website, and not many read what we write anyway, the vast majority of the flow is lede, infobox, references. Moreover, commercial interest articles are taken with a grain of salt and subject to the other pov (like the competitor's pov), this is the beauty of collaborative editing, which is the PRIMARY goal of the Foundation and that which you appear to have lost your faith in. See ya in the funny papers. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 08:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Album art for the first Solutions for Dreamers album.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Album art for the first Solutions for Dreamers album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Solutions for Dreamers for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan and Kvng: For clarity -- MSJapan, Your AfD nomination is incorrect, the paid disclosure is and always has been on the talk page. As for listing the festival on Jack Johnson's article, he was not scheduled because of other commitments, but flew over on the red-eye to sit in with most of the groups. See this fourteen month old, still unanswered edit request. FYI Oniracom produced most of Johnson's early charity events, but the article is not about Oniracom, nor Jack Johnson, if you want another association with Jack Johnson, check the footer on his website.[17] As a creative agency, Oniracom could not qualify for a Wikipedia article, Solutions for Dreamers did and it is not defunct, they held a charity fund raiser last year, [18] Finally, the albums have no "profit" value, the proceeds go to charity, if they are even still selling at all. As for a lasting WP:EFFECT the US Navy adopted better rules about subjecting marine mammals to sonar soundings [19] and awareness was brought to the The Cabrillo Port LNG deep water port which was later declined.[20] Both items are no longer represented in the Event article, pruned by you. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI for Tokyogirl79

@Tokyogirl79: The notability discussion is something I'd been trying to get resolved for quite some time. Discussing policy had a big role in getting me banned, but I still feel the guidance needs to be updated to reflect consensus. The GNG states that the subject must be a topic of the referenced RS article, this is stated in what appears to be the definition of "Significant coverage."

Conversely, most of the project guidance inaccurately says that the (WP) subject must be the subject of the referenced article. Quite frustrating when you can't use an article for notability because the AfC/AfD community can't decide whether an article applies to a corporation or a CEO. In effect, you can't do either article, because of the weaseling about the main topic, which again, has no basis per the GNG to begin with. (Even WP:BKCRIT, where you and I became acquainted, misuses the word "subject," unfairly narrowing the GNG IMHO. As I recall, you seemed to be pretty protective about upholding the Book guidance, nice to see you on the other side of the issue.)

Anyway, search your subject as "Leigh Daniel Avidan" there might be couple of missing references that might be RS. From what I'm seeing, your subject doesn't have adequate coverage, but keep searching, Google ferrets more things out over time. Cheers! 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 07:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hopefully I can find something because this is one situation that's just plain frustrating. If the guy had been only an actor and the projects films he'd starred in, no one would have batted an eye. But because they're bands and not films, they don't count. SMH. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Ha!, try a corporate article for an emerging, brand. This subject was recently deleted, it wasn't my article, I grabbed a copy as an example. A monster has been created and the notability hurdle will continue to be arbitrarily raised.

I had a song article with some interesting aspects,[21] that I could not get through AfC. Theme song for a film that became a Halloween classic after a decade and the song still gets mentions 25 years later. There is no original soundtrack album, but it (the film version) was released on a different album by the original artist, otherwise the master tapes were lost over the years. Nobody in AfC would consider it to be "other recordings" instead of NSONGS, which is a convoluted mess with a history of people tacking little bits on to the original consensus. Had the song been released as a single (two others were), it would have qualified for the "Recordings" section. Even the NALBUMS shortcut is in the wrong section of NMUSIC. A lot like the unstated requirements at NBOOKS, extra hurdles to keep articles out, rather than have faith in the collaborative editing process. Good luck with your article, a few years ago, it would have been allowed to sustain as a stub and other editors would improve it, the subject is clearly notable, he just doesn't have the press. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 14:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Postmodern Jukebox official logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Postmodern Jukebox official logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Writer1977: Hey, can you restore the logo before it gets deleted for not being used on the relevant page? It has proper rational under fair use. I'm currently blocked. Thanks! 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 00:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)