User:Scarian/Med1

Mediation
Okay, after looking quickly over the Melody Amber chess tournament article history. It looks as though User:Guido den Broeder wished to use his co-authored books as references in the article. User:GijsvdL and (from my memory) one or two other users found the sources to be self-promotional. We're here to figure out what's going on. Scarian Call me Pat!  16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to see it analysed. I'd like to add, though, that IMHO it works best if chess articles are edited by chess players, stock market articles by editors knowledgable in that area, etc. If all chess players agree that it is relevant and neutral to include tournament books, then I believe they should be listened to, and not opposed by users who have never shown any interest in chess articles before, and insist that some books should be removed while other books can stay. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thing is... there's a policy entitled WP:COI. You're adding in your own books to an article about which you've written. That's a conflict of interest, no? Scarian Call me Pat!  16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly is. Btw, I also added the other tournament books that I knew of. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in my opinion, the other tournament books would be fine. But yours would violate COI? Scarian Call me Pat!  16:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. A book cannot violate WP:COI, only a user can. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, technically you are. You're adding in a reference that you've written, ergo, it's biased. Do you see what I mean? Scarian Call me Pat!  16:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, but I disagree. More importantly, the guideline disagrees. I have not violated WP:COI, nor is the reference in any way tainted. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Quote from WP:COI: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." - Tells me that your sources would violate the "neutral" part of that sentence. COI does apply to sourcing too, by the way. Scarian Call me Pat!  16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not tell that at all. The reference is what it is, WP:COI does not affect it. The guideline deals with user actions, not with material. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It says an "incompatibility". Your sources, whilst potentially reliable, are still subject to a conflict of interest seeing as YOU have written them. It makes it not neutrally sourced. Which makes Wikipedia not neutral. Which makes it incompatible. Which defies the whole point of this encyclopaedia. Do you see what I mean, friend? Scarian Call me Pat!  17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The incompatibility pertains, see the citation above, to the aim of Wikipedia and the aims of the user. A source, or an article, is not a user, and can therefore not violate the guideline. It is important that you understand this, before we can continue. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - what? You're asking an admin if he understands WP:COI? How rude of you to assume such a thing. We shall wait for the other user involved to partake in the discussion before moving on. Thanks. Scarian Call me Pat!  17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not assuming anything, but you are. You are for some reason assuming that just because you are an admin, you know more about these matters than I do. I urge you to comply with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...Okay, this isn't going to work. I tried but I cannot work with you on this matter. I'll refer this to a different admin. Scarian Call me Pat!  18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way... you're related to the topic because you've published a book about it. You shouldn't be making major edits to it (i.e. adding your own published works). I agree with the other users; it violates WP:PROMOTION. Scarian Call me Pat!  19:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)