User talk:AtticusX/Archive 2

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I have seen AtticusX doing hand holding to a lot of new wikipedians, without losing his patience, and tirelessly contributing to wikipedia day and night. Keep it up mate. Fanofbollywood (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Beaconhouse School System

I see you've been trying to clean up Beaconhouse School System and is associated pages. They are unfortunately typical of the pages for schools in India and Pakistan; a good deal of the content is copyvio. I've worked on such pages a good deal, and they are very frustrating, because they are generally important enough that we want to try to keep some information, but there are too many to do a detailed rewrite of all of them.

I'm sure you've been paying attention to this, but for this particular page, & the page for the Pakistan branch, I wonder if you could take another look at the various parts of the website, and remove the obvious copyvio sections. I'd normally do it myself once I've seen the problem, but I need some help. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge; I'll take a look. AtticusX (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! The amount of copyvio content needing removal was fairly modest in the end, relative to the size of the articles. Nonetheless, the copyvio stuff was mingling pretty closely with legit content in some places, making it a bit tricky to disentangle. Especially since the copyvio didn't come from just one webpage. I rewrote where it seemed appropriate. Thanks for alerting me to the issue so I could work on it. AtticusX (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Chinesepod

I noticed the uncited revision you undid at Chinesepod has once again been re-added by User:Braintic as he has done many times before. This user also previously deleted my attempt at discussion on the Talk page. I feel this user or dispute should be reported somehow, but me being a very new editor I'm not sure what the best course of action is in this case. I gave the user a warning on his talk page and he also has a previous unrelated one. Maxintman (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If they continue to revert the article and further attempts to engage them in civil discussion fail, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit warring noticeboard is the norm. (See WP:Edit warring for guidelines related to edit warring.) Removal of other editors' talk page comments is considered bad practice, though inexperienced users like Braintic may not be aware of this. WP:Civility has some suggestions for dealing with uncivil behavior like this in a civil manner. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution lays out your options if you want to initiate a formal request for comment, or if their inappropriate behavior persists to the point of obvious, repeated, and malicious disruption or personal attacks and they need to be reported for disruptive behavior. When a problem becomes that clear-cut, often other editors will step in at that point to resolve the problem without any report being needed. I'll try to keep an eye on things when I can, though I may be taking a wikibreak soon.

By the way, well done with the invitation to discussion on the talk page. Even though it hasn't produced any sort of civil response at this point, it shows that you're doing your part to assume good faith and handle the problem responsibly. I've moved your comment (along with some others) from the top of the page down to the bottom — it's normal to add new comment threads at the bottom of a talk page to preserve a roughly chronological layout for everyone. Best wishes and happy editing here on Wikipedia! AtticusX (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dot Dot Dot

Hi AtticusX, I just want to let you know I've removed the 'connected contributor' templates from Talk:DOT DOT DOT (artist), because I can't see any evidence for these allegations. The second editor seems to have made only a couple of minor edits. I can't see anything on the author's pages to suggest they're connected. It is the sort of article any graffiti enthusiast might create. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sionk, I've replied on your talk page with the evidence. AtticusX (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that. Well spotted!! By all means add back the templates. Sionk (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your steadfast efforts on wikipedia, from normal copyediting, to reverting nonsense like the closing dates at Fantasyland. Great work! Tiggerjay (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tiggerjay! :) AtticusX (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Andreas Raab

User:itsmeront It is true that I have worked with Andreas. But I have known him for over 10 years. I'm a part of the Squeak User Community and have been for many years. I have removed the link to 3dicc which is related to me. Andreas' accomplishments are well documented. This article does not benefit my company it is a way to remember some very significant accomplishments of a very talented person. There is no COI in documenting the life of Andreas Raab.

I'm sorry, but actually there really is a technical conflict of interest for you at Andreas Raab, fairly clear-cut by Wikipedia's standards, despite your sincere and generous intentions in writing the article about him. To be clear, the COI arose simply because you created and edited an article about a person you personally knew for many years. (The potential for commercial benefit is of course negligible and probably irrelevant in this case, but that's only one of many reasons COI edits can be dangerous for Wikipedia.)

As far as the reasons why this is against guidelines, the links I posted on your talk page can tell you a lot more of the story, but in a nutshell: Wikipedia's history has shown that an editor's close personal connection with the subject, even when they try super hard for neutrality, almost always ends up being a practical barrier to editorial objectivity (the ability to avoid being affected by personal bias, either through inclusion or exclusion), and therefore must be viewed as a disqualification from editing that particular subject. This can seem awfully counterintuitive at times, esp. when the COI editor has extensive access to knowledge of the subject that they strongly believe is important to share.

Anyway, Wikipedia's guidelines "strongly discourage" you from continuing to edit Andreas Raab, just as they would discourage you from writing about yourself, your family, friends, or other colleagues... even though your edits in this case have been, I know, motivated by the very warmest of intentions.

FYI, since you're new to writing on talk pages: you can (and always should) end your talk page comments with four tildes so as to add your signature at the end.

On a more personal note, I want to offer my sincerest condolences for the recent loss of your friend. AtticusX (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

user:itsmeront Thank you for the explanation. I will refrain from making more edits. Based on comments above and the fact that the article has received 34 ratings about Objective and has a score of 4.4 I would say this meets the requirement of writing an article that average readers would find Objective.

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.

 I have not removed any information posted by others.  I have tried to only post factual information 
 that is supported by references.  This actually made the article much better.

• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.

 I have not deleted any information posted by others. 

• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

 I have removed all links to my company.

• ...Subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.

 I am a subject matter expert in the field of Smalltalk and Squeak not just a colleague of Andreas Raab.

• You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or your close friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article. You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life.

 I have only met Andreas once in real life, we are colleagues.  Andreas was very well respected and 
 most people that knew him would consider him a good friend.  You can't exclude an entire community 
 from creating an article about Andreas on this basis.

Based on these points I think it is reasonable to ask you to remove your COI objection. Please consider doing so.

Itsmeront, again, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by adding four tildes at the end: ~~~~ And please don't copy-paste other users' comments from other talk pages to mine. You can link to other talk pages if you want me to read what others have said.

I appreciate that you have taken the time to study Wikipedia's guidelines for COI editors and that you believe you have followed them, and that you intend to refrain from further edits to the article in question. In noting that you had a COI when you created and edited the article, I am not questioning Raab's notability or worthiness for inclusion on Wikipedia. I haven't proposed that the article be deleted (as WP:COI says, "Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article"). Nor have I implied that you have acted in bad faith or knowingly broken any rules. The COI tag was placed to let subsequent editors know that you were personally connected to the subject (based on the information you posted on your user page), to help them understand the evolution of the article so they can better improve it. So please don't worry about it; the article's in good shape, and I think that as other editors continue the improvement of the article, they'll find you've done an admirable job laying the groundwork for a strong, objective article.

In any case, I will go ahead and remove the COI template from the article for now, given that you intend to refrain from further edits to it, and because the article is already undergoing active improvement by other editors. AtticusX (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 68.50.63.70 (talk)

Let me try that again

Thank you Itsmeront (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)