Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pubwvj (talk | contribs) at 10:06, 25 April 2015 (→‎Sugar Mountain Farm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (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-wp@wikipedia.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


    Lajosgents

    User history and overly promotional tone of his/her creations (example) strongly suggest COI editing. Asked user Lajosgents directly if they were working for hire. Several suspicious abuse log triggers might be relevant. — Brianhe (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Starting to think there's a sockfarm at work here on related jewelry and diamond business articles. Added above. - Brianhe (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    this was archived - i just pulled it back out after Brianhe called my attention to that on my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this need anything else from me? — Brianhe (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with minor spam

    Any opinions on how minor spam/promotions should be handled? For example, Special:Contributions/108.6.8.18 and Special:Contributions/206.71.226.12 show a handful of edits, each of which is to add information about a publisher and their current or forthcoming books. The result is junk like "to be published in September 2015 by Seven Stories Press" at the end of the lead at Danny Schechter, and the link spam at Lee Stringer#External links. Should we even bother trying to combat such promotions any more? Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing any spam. Just addition of unsourced info. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be pushing WP:AGF a little far because every edit is to publicize a particular publisher. I gave two examples of inappropriate edits, and it would be very time consuming to engage users like this in a discussion about the merits of using Wikipedia to promote a company's products. Quite a lot of this kind of product-placement editing occurs, and it's hard to know how to handle it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Well. What I'm saying is that I would make those edits myself if I had reliable sources for them. (In fact if I had that kind of time I would go and either find those sources or revert those edits as unsourced.) BUT. The second IP especially seems to be on a mission to make sure this publisher is mentioned in several articles, I think that kind of behavior qualifies as WP:SPAM ("Spam is the inappropriate addition of ... information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization..."). I can't think of a user warning template that would be appropriate to use on these IPs so I guess we're just going to have to type up an original warning just for them (including info about spamming/COI editing and adding unsourced content). After they've been warned we can see a bit better what the situation is.
    So, to answer your first question, I think that's how this kind of editors should be handled: warn them and see what happens. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's definitely bookspam as the main purpose is to promote the books, especially when the edits are in the lead. Ssintern (talk · contribs) and Intern7stories (talk · contribs) give the appearance that interns at the publisher are encouraged to edit WP, which may explain these edits. SmartSE (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dare to eat a peach (talk · contribs), EBGraber (talk · contribs), Topknot2 (talk · contribs), SevenStoried (talk · contribs) and Sevenstoryist (talk · contribs) also look suspicious. Whether they're aware of COI or doing this in good faith, this is a concerted effort to add mentions of their books to articles over many years. SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by the edits I've seen, they typically add info like "this author will publish book Y via publisher Z", in an article about an author this is very relevant information. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the primary purpose is to promote their books, rather than improve articles, hence why it is a COI/spam issue. Some edits are ok, but the vast majority are not. SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    there are several problems with the work they are doing:
    1/it is not always clear that the author is in fact notable. For the representative of a publisher to start a page on one of their authors in mainspace is improper COI
    2/it is not always clear the the book is important enough to be covered in text, rather than just listed in the author's Bibliography section
    3/the book should be sourced to WorldCat or LC or a similar site, not the publisher's site, which is as bad as sourcing the information to Amazon.
    4/the material is often overlinked, the name of the publisher should be linked, but only once an article.
    5/some edits from various places have added a link to the publisher's site as an EL, often to a sample chapter. This is a violation of EL policy.
    6/this rarely happens with fiction, but in other subject for the publisher to add a the book to the article on the subject the book covers is improper--they must suggest it on the talk page.
    7/Of course, adding a page about the book is wrong; adding simultaneously a page for a new author and their first book is imo always promotional.
    8/forthcoming books are like forthcoming films--they need to be actually written and the book under production, and there needs to be a good source. Of course, for a famous author there may be 3rd party RS even beforehand, but the publisher or the author is not a RS that they are in the process of writing a book. A great many people are in the process of writing their next book,; not all of them will get published, or even finished. I normally remove all unsourced mentions of forthcoming books from articles on authors--after first checking in WorldCat that the book is not by some chance actually published.
    But it is never wrong to explain to the user why what they are doing is wrong--it's not all that time consumer because the same message can be used repeatedly, and we owe every user even those who do not understand WP the courtesy. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy

    Resolved

    Editor has disclosed a COI - she works at the college, but is ignoring efforts to get her to stop directly editing the article. Copyvio too. Article has been tagged; is currently partially blanked with a copyvio notice. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting this, Jytdog. It seems that user Lauralibal, after very properly and clearly declaring her COI, has nevertheless painted herself into a corner for now; I don't regard that as a success on my part. The problems are not limited to the pharmacy college but extend to the article on the university as well; there are at least two other connected editors, which I've added above. Between them they've done us a service, however - as a result of their antics a particularly egregious copyvio from 2010 has come to light, which has led to the discovery of several more by the same user. Every cloud ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Viresh Pratap Chaudhry

    A recent editor who shares a name with the subject has turned this article into a memorial. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironholds has reverted. I have dropped a note on the editor's page. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    John Basedow

    The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

    Warnings given [12] [13] etc but no attempt from editor to engage in dialogue, continues to WP:OWN article and talk page. Widefox; talk 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Smartse Laddypat has removed tags and AfD [14] after final warning given. Widefox; talk 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm involved now, so I've asked at ANI for someone else to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. I should have used ANI, I filed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Laddypat_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29. Widefox; talk 13:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Can close. Widefox; talk 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a puzzling amount of forum shopping. It is much easier to discuss an article at one noticeboard at a time. As Laddypat (talk · contribs) is now blocked, we can add the article to our watchlists, and continue the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Owned article for 7 years?

    Of general COI note...how we can have such a poor indef semi-protected (BLP) article, WP:OWNed by an WP:SPA with minor edits since 2008? Seven years! Several editors have remarked about the state of the article at Talk:John Basedow but for years their comments were just removed. Widefox; talk 09:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This happens quite easily I think: a low traffic article has few people watching it. I am a little disappointed the recent changes patrol didn't notice the edit wars were part of a pattern, nor the talk page vandalism. It leads to a bad experience all round. What can we do to improve that? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biotecnika Magazine

    Resolved
     – blocked Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Naming convention, content of user page, and possible COI. 7&6=thirteen

    As the user has not edited any page except their own user page, there is no COI, and thus nothing for this board. I have flagged the user name concerns to the proper location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Blocked. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Gettysburg Address (film)

    Resolved
     – article deleted Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the edits at the page are being done by a username that matches that of a director of the film. He is adding unsourced information, including on tie-in products. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    yep. removed all the unsourced junk. went looking for sources and didn't find much. i put it up for speedy delete promo. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    and it was speedy deleted -- see here. That was actually the 2nd time it had been created and then speedied. The COI problem has not really been addressed as the creator never talked to us, but problem solved for now. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I was trying to be gentle with him, but things had gone on for long enough. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for bringing this, Nat. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarfaraz K. Niazi

    Resolved
     – article cleaned; additional eyes on it if the hoards return. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarfaraz K. Niazi is a gentleman of many accomplishments. The descriptions of these have over the years been contributed, at considerable length, by near-SPAs Kitabparast and Sarfniazi; and by SPAs Andrewbourgoin, Jachurd, Jachurd2 and Skniazi.

    The OTRS notice on the talk page is evidence of the biographee's hand in his article. (I'm not an OTRS volunteer and therefore have no idea of what was communicated.)

    It's splendid that those in the know can offer readers so much; but I think that much of the material in this article is prolix, hagiographic and unsuitable. However, removals of such material are reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. That's an impressive resume, but a rubbish encyclopedia article. I'll get my hedge-trimmer out and see what happens next. More eyes would probably not go amiss. SmartSE (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It turned out that a great deal of the content was copied from his personal website. I've removed the worst content, but more unsourced content remains. Given the multiple SPAs that have edited it recently, I'll start an SPI as well. SmartSE (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts and after some googling, it seems much more likely to be meatpuppetry rather than socking and it is so obvious that SPI is unneccesary. Blocks will be needed if they persist though. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your good work. ¶ Yes, there's one obvious meatperson. As for the others, it wouldn't surprise me if they were all socks of each other. But if they were, so what? As long as they don't support each other in arguments, evade blocks, or similar, they'd be doing nothing wrong. It's not obvious to me that an SPI is called for. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I worked this over this morning. interesting guy. sorry if i stepped on your toes there, Smartse - we started going at it at the same time. all clean and sourced now. no puffery or unsourced left, i think. but yeah we should watch out for the pufferiers to come back. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, thanks for the help Jytdog! SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work, chaps -- but please see the talk page, and comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Castle Rock, Colorado

    An editor is continuously removing an article section critical of the town of Castle Rock, Colorado. The editor has claimed to represent the town, but has failed to disclose any paid editing or COI despite being warned to. Attempts to address the editors concerns with a lack of neutrality in the article have been met with violations of WP:3RR and removal of the information citing "inaccuracy" despite the information being based upon reliable news reports. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree completely with everything User:Winner 42 said above. To me, it seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, removing content simply because it makes the place look bad. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so this is not okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please understand this has nothing to do with making the place look bad. My concern is singling out one specific event. There are various stories about Castle Rock that can be sited from news sources. I have no problem including this event if other news stories are also included. Listing only one event makes this article biased by nature. My hope is that we can come to a mutual agreement. talk to me! 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Carmen Chu

    Recent expansion of biographical article, into a format that looks a bit like a campaign brochure--not every accomplishment here merits encyclopedic mention, nor do we need this many photo ops. Beyond that, now requires removal of a lot of external links. 2602:302:D89:D609:31BC:992E:2F19:A52B (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the excessive images on the page. You are right–the page read like a brochure just by the overwhelming amount of pictures alone. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted their edits as they were clearly promotional and unsourced - the previous version was much better. If they visit this thread, they're strongly advised to follow WP:BESTCOI. SmartSE (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. 2602:302:D89:D609:31BC:992E:2F19:A52B (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sugar Mountain Farm

    Pubwvj is the self-declared owner/operator of the business described by this article. After apparently authoring and editing the article for a period of years he did declare his ownership of the business a few days ago. Has ignored efforts to get him to stop directly editing the article. Has disruptively and repeatedly asked/demanded that only editors he approves edit the article. Bruceki (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bruceki:, when you report someone here, you must inform them that you've done so. I've informed them now, but if you report people here again, you must notify them ASAP- the easiest way is to add {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: I've came to Sugar Mountain Farm via WP:3O and suggested these two users come here. Bruceki did notify Pubwvj (Albeit not on their talk page) when he posted the notice on the article talk page and pinged Pubwvj [15]. As to the case I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of it but I do believe both of these editors are way to close to the subject to be neutral. Although I do believe they are both have good intentions. Jbh (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I looked on the user talkpage and couldn't find it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Talk:Sugar Mountain Farm gives good examples of the issues here. These two users seem not to get along at all and know each other in real life. Pubwvj has been using edit requests since I told him about them but wants Bruceki to be required to do the same. There are also a lot of accusations going back and forth loaded with a lot of off-wiki baggage that I have no real clue about. Jbh (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that neither Pubwvj or Bruceki should be editing the article. They appear to have been involved in a real-world dispute for years (see for example this 2009 blog post by Bruceki who outs themselves on their userpage). Pubwvj is right to be agrieved by Bruceki's harrassment here and it needs to stop now. Hopefully now that there are more eyes on the article, they can both sit back and let us edit it instead. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at that talkpage, I strongly agree that neither should edit- one has a massive positive COI towards the company, and one a massive negative COI towards the company. I've added @Bruceki: to the COI editors list above because of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    aren't you supposed to put something on my user talk page @Joseph2302:? Per this discussion I will restrict my input on that article to the talk page. Thank you all for your time. Bruceki (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been quite clear from the start of who I am and my relationship to my farm. Bruceki on the other hand has hidden that he has a massive negative COI which he fails to mention which stems from his years of attacking me. Examples of his behavior are widely available on the web should references be necessary. Contrary to what Bruceki misstates above, I have been working with JBH and OhNoItsJamie on the talk page and they have been making the edits to the article. Bruceki has a history of being warned against doing WP:SYNTH and of attacking other farms. Additionally, Bruceki lacks knowledge about the topic and has been repeatedly written false statements in to the discussion and page be it that these falsities arrive from his purposeful choices or simply he doesn't know what he is talking about is moot. Bruceki should stick to talk at most and not be making edits. The page in question is long supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture and Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. I have received guidance from people over the years to improve the page and I look forward to the help that people can give to further improve it to make it be a better part of Wiki. Pubwvj (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=659118061"