User talk:Jameslwoodward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Luise Kaish COI notification[edit]

Hello Jim,

I'm writing about 2 articles that you recently flagged. I've done my best to stick to all of the advice posed in Wikipedia's "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide". And beyond that, as I am connected to a non-profit foundation, I feel that my role falls under one these guidelines for "Practices not regarded as COI" :

Consultants for mission-aligned organizations: When an organization like an educational non-profit – one that largely shares our mission of sharing knowledge – seeks someone to help facilitate an informal collaborative relationship, that is often a mutually beneficial situation. These positions may be for-profit. Be careful of areas where missions are not aligned. Avoid even the appearance of impropriety by limiting scope to mission-aligned areas and using full disclosure for any potential areas of concern. Employees at cultural and academic institutions: We want experts editing Wikipedia articles. Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest.

I hope that you can help by letting me know how best to resolve the COI label you've affixed to these articles, as I don't feel that it is merited. Thank you for your time.

--Sarahcmccollum (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. In the Commons UnDR you said, "I work for the Kaish family and am reaching out on behalf of Morton Kaish and Melissa Kaish". In the Summary at the guide you cite, there are nine points. You are in violation of the first three of them:

  • Be transparent about your conflict of interest. -- Your talk pages are blank. Transparency requires that you say who you are if there is even a hint of a problem.
  • Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. As noted above, you say that you work for the family of the two artists.
  • Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space. You have edited the articles directly, not done this.

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.

Now you say you work for a foundation. If the foundation is truly educational and completely independent of the Kaish family, then it might be OK. If, on the other hand, it is one of the several foundations involving the Kaishes that Google turns up, then it is clearly not OK. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 15:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


Hello again, Jim.

Thank you very much for your quick reply and for your help in navigating through this issue. I have added a disclosure on my talk pages--following reading your comments. I was doing the best I could (and knew how to do) when I first embarked on writing and editing. I would have placed a disclosure there earlier if I had known that was an issue or a common practice. I'm doing the best I can--there are a lot of layers to read and digest in terms of usage.

I thought that since I had gone through the process by creating a userspace draft and then requesting that it be reviewed through Wikipedia:Feedback or Articles for creation, that it was OK--since I was not just putting the page up myself, but requesting that others review, provide feedback or critique if needed and approve.

In reading about this further, I see on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard that "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."

In light of this, I'm hoping that you will reconsider and remove the notification on the page.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Sarah --Sarahcmccollum (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Simply saying again here and on your talk page that you are employed by a foundation tells the community nothing about potential COI. Is your employer a foundation directly related to the Kaish family or not? Answering that question is the essence of the required transparency. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

COI for Eric Daimler[edit]

Hi Jim,

I posted this earlier: At Commons:Undeletion requests today, the following was posted: "I was given this picture [of Eric Daimler] from the person the article is about with permission to use it. I am his assistant and writing the article for him.--Rfshearer"

I misspoke when I wrote that. I am no longer affiliated with Eric Daimler. I don't work with him any longer. I wrote this article for Presidential Innovation Fellows by the request of someone else and Eric happened happened to be one of those given that honor. If I still need to make a note about my affiliation with him, I can do that.Rfshearer (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's always better to be transparent, so, yes, I would suggest that you put a note on User:Rfshearer that describes your past and present relationship with Daimler and any others you write about. Drop a note here when you've done that and I will probably remove the {{COI}} tag from the article. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I described my working relationship with Mr. Daimler here: If I need to add anything else, let me know. If it's okay, please remove the COI. Rfshearer (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I'm on the fence about whether Daimler is notable by WP:EN standards or not, so I did not comment there except to remove the COI. If pressed, I would probably say he's not -- I know many more notable entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who are not in WP. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


Just an FYI in response to your edit at Aqeel Solangi: Revolvy is a Wikipedia mirror. It yanks content from us, not the other way around. ~ Rob13Talk 16:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13, that may be, but Revolvy claims copyright, so Commons policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Note also that I started the Commons DR not because of the Revolvy version of the image, but because the image appears to be a copyright violation. That fact also requires that the actual photographer send a free license. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the Commons discussion; I haven't seen the photo, so I can't comment on the photo itself. I'm commenting on the fact that you removed a large amount of text from that article stating it was a copyright violation from the Revolvy article. Except under the Revolvy article, it says "Content from Wikipedia", so they took it from us in the first place. ~ Rob13Talk 13:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Aha -- sorry for the confusion. However, I'm not sure you have your facts rights. If Revolvy is, in fact, a mirror, then it is a copyright violation for it to claim copyright on WP material. Mirrors do not generally make that kind of mistake.
Of course you are perfectly free to revert my edits. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I've seen plenty of unattributed copies from Wikipedia - clear cut cases of copied from here - that people then claimed copyright over. Unlike with images, writing text is the key aspect of Wikipedia so one does need to be more sceptical of copyvio claims on text than on images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jameslwoodward. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Havn[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Havn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, pure original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Guye, I would, in fact, be happy to see Havn deleted. Although I am an Admin, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser on Commons, here I am just an ordinary User. If you will look at the article history you will see that it was an inappropriate redirect (similar to redirecting Harbor to New York Harbor). Since that was both wrong and a nuisance, I changed it. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Malevolent Film[edit]

Hi James. I'm Lawrence Lee Wallace executive producer of the film Malevolent. This is my first time editing anything on Wikipedia so I'm afraid I am not clear on the rules for it. I did not create the page but I was trying to add our poster for it. Is this not possible?

Lawrence Lee Wallace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llw777 (talkcontribs) 19:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding the poster, once it is properly licensed on Commons, would, I think, be OK. However, the edits you have made to Malevolent (film) go well beyond adding the poster, hence the {{COI}} tag. As I suggested at Commons, you really should read WP:COI. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)