User talk:Ann12h

User Talk Page for Ann12h

Conflict of interest
I think you may have a conflict of interest (COI) with regards to Andre Julian. See the conflict of interest guideline. Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare them. So I am asking you: are you in any way associated with Andre Julian? It may be that you don't have a COI. However, your edits create at least the appearance of it.

You may also want to see this page: Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisb3637, which was opened because it is suspected that you are illegitimately using more than one account or because you are engaged in meatpuppetry. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Response Your skepticism is a wonderful attribute for an investigator or a reviewer.  So I am not disparaging your character trait.  But you paint yourself into logical corners when you insist that Mr. Julian the MMA fighter "is a different person" or when you insist that notability is exclusively "coverage" and not "recognition" (Wiki guidelines state coverage or recognition.  Your accusation of my using more than 1 account if false (would not IP addresses verify that?).  My suggestion is that you modify your verbage to "I suspect" or "it seems that".  Other than that, I am delighted that you have assumed the difficult task of being a Wiki watchdog.  (BTW:  Who are you?  Do you have an axe to grind?)


 * That said, let's address COI. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups."  I in no way am promoting my interests.  It matters not to me whether Mr. Julian has an article in Wiki or not.  I had met Mr. Julian several times at a personal level years ago (disclosure is irrelevant at this time).  I independently came across Mr. Julian's Wiki page on July 11, and made some edits.  That was my 1st knowledge of or contact with the page.  As a result of your comments, I contacted (eMail) Mr. Julian to ask what is going on re: AfD and offered my support.  My suggestions were to carefully read all the "Wiki policies, rules and guidelines" and conform to them.  My extensive background in office politics and regulation research indicated I could be of some benefit.


 * Bottom line: I am a disinterested party, neutral, with no desire to promote anyone, with no financial interest, I have made minor edits in good faith, I have not seen Mr. Julian in years and I have no objective other than promoting accurate and reasonably well written articles of encyclopedic suitability appearing on Wiki. Ann12h (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that issue. I'm not continuing to insist they are different people. It is reasonable speculation when there are no sources that link the two, but when it was pointed out they are the same, you haven't seen me still saying otherwise. The sockpuppet investigation found that while you and another editor were unrelated, there was a shared IP involved which suggests you may be coworkers. When there is suspected (see the language in my first post) sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, a sockpuppet case can be opened. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Response Are you saying that the July 12 edit with 69.145.126.232 (where I tested Edit before having created a Wiki account) and the Ann12h edits (after having created a Wiki account and logging in), raised a flag because they have the same IP address? These were revisions, so who cares?  Now, having the same IP address in posting comments and votes on the AfD page, that would be of concern.  Whatever.  But we digress.


 * Do the latest References on the Andre Julian Wiki page meet your approval? The object was to provide links to sites that fully support/verify the content in the article.  The listed References (and there were many other references) were found doing a Google search. Do you still want inline citations?


 * Unfortunately, as a result of this exercise, I have been spending too much time examining the worthiness of Wiki topics and the goodness of their respective references (as opposed to simply reading for content). Some (accepted) articles are far less suitable, in my opinion, than Mr. Julian's bio.  For example, and in fairness to Mr. Julian, he is far more notable than "David Muir" was when David's page went up, and Andre Julian has had far more exposure than, until recently, David Muir had (to be sure, now that Mr. Muir has been assigned the weekend news anchor spot, the comparison currently becomes arguable).  Why was not Mr. Julian's notability, by virtue of his appearances on and having been vetted by the top financial news networks in the country, afforded the same courtesy as, in this example, David Muir's article?  Ann12h (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppet investigation listed your account as a possible sock or meatpuppet of User:Chrisb3637. So I suspected you either controlled that account also or you were working with that editor. It turned out that you were not the same person but that you may be coworkers, because there was a shared IP involved (don't know what this means exactly). The language you used ("We have removed links we thought the reviewers deemed in non conformance. We are in the process or reintroducing links that directly support the article statements and attest to Mr. Julian's notability.") also suggests this. Why "we"? And this was shortly after another editor had removed some of the references.


 * I don't think the new references pass muster. They're just more of the same quote-references. It would still be helpful to add inline citations to the article, though I suspect you'll be unable to do this for a lot of the info; much of it looks like original research.


 * There is an essay at WP:OTHERSTUFF that says the existence of other articles has no bearing on the deletion discussion for the original one. I don't know about the David Muir article but if you don't think he's notable, you're free to nominate it deletion. Also, standards for notability have gone up since that article was created, five years ago. Learning about notability is a good skill here, and you might want to do other things instead of simply being an Andre Julian single-purpose account. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Response "We have removed links we thought the reviewers deemed in non conformance. ..." We refers directly to Mr. Julian and myself. As mentioned above in my response to the COI, "As a result of your comments ..." I eMailed Mr. Julian asking for his assessment of references to be deleted and especially that he suggest additional references that are secondary and independent.  Well, the "we" turned out to be premature.  For whatever reason (maybe he was too busy) he did not respond with any list; he sent 1 suggested link.  I Googled his name to pick up other links and unilaterally edited the References section.  Obviously, my efforts were independent of any other editors.


 * Why doesn't Bio on Andre Julian pass muster? (Let's be clear, with the exception of original creative material, everything is he said/she said, and even with secondary sources, veracity stems from the initial source.)


 * In that same essay WP:OTHERSTUFF also note we should not be under the "misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Yes, the essay states that these arguments may not be   "convincing" arguments but they certainly have weight.  Nevertheless, I concur that these kinds of arguments should be avoided if possible.


 * The David Muir article is not a good article. The David Muir article is not well written. The David Muir article has been cited for needing citations and verification (for a year and a half now?).  I'm delighted that Wiki standards have gone up and I'm not saying the David Muir article should be deleted, but still ...


 * This exercise (my 1st and only Wiki edit) has been quite educational. I normally use Wiki as a starting point or refreshing point on mathematical concepts (e.g., Black–Scholes or Lagrangianand have usually been impressed with the content.  I sometimes have been disappointed in the depth and/or preciseness of the content.  I now am appreciative of why that is the case on Wiki: it might take a little time for various contributing editors to get it right.  And I was not aware of how easy it is to correct or improve content on Wiki.  Thank you for your suggestion, and I will make it a point to edit articles whenever I feel I can add value, depth and correctness.


 * OK, again I digress, so back on point: Knowing what you know, do you share my conviction the Andre Julian article will be made right rather soon given that it remains on Wiki? Ann12h (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Minyanville source isn't independent because he is one of their "Professors". It may be used to source some of the content, but doesn't count towards satisfying notability. There's stuff in the article that looks hard to source. For example, "After the divorce of his parents", "Mr. Julian had an opportunity to live in Australia, where his mother was originally raised". Are there even non-independent sources that contain this info? Don't really know what you mean by "made right", but deletion discussions sometimes aren't very rigourous, and a lot of them depends on who decides to turn up. Also, people have different opinions on what should and should not be here. I think, though, that it's leaning towards deletion. Several of the keep votes have been tagged as single-purpose accounts, and their views may not be given as much weight by the closing admin. If it's deleted, I hope you won't be too disaffected with Wiki and will continue editing. (Please indent your posts using colons. There's also no need to announce your replies with "Response".) Christopher Connor (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your latest post at Mike Cline's page contained a lot of negative stuff about me. See No personal attacks. My name appears in almost every sentence of that post. You're not really allowed to make those sort of remarks about other editors and bring up unrelated stuff from the past. You've also cluttered up Mike Cline's page with stuff he may not want to read about. If you want to discuss that sort of stuff, do it on the relevant pages. Anyway, I'll probably not take the article to WP:DRV because it's unlikely I'll "win". Neither am I going to post further on Mike Cline's page; his position is clear. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm very, very sorry that you were upset by the "stuff". I was very careful to comment about the content of what you wrote and not on you the person.  I see that re-posting the negative comments made by others on your page, although it was clear that I did not make them, cast a negative shadow on the entire set of comments.  Regarding the comments that I made about you, they were somewhat neutral.  But I was remiss in not providing examples, elaborations and supporting facts regarding my statements.


 * I stand by my comments that you have been on point, rational, cogent and polite and I assume you have no problems with those comments. Let me provide a few examples of stuff with which you may have had problems.  My intention is to make clear that these were not personal attacks, rather they were  issues of content.  Indeed, the characteristics you may have seen as negative are characteristics that are positive and highly valuable in brainstorming sessions or debate preparation.
 * Argumentative. Even after the AfD was closed, you still wanted to "overturn the close" as well as all the times you ignored my having pointed out Wiki's elaboration of guidelines and continued to revert to your narrowed interpretation as the only correct interpretation.
 * Skeptical. "I think the MMA fighter is a different person." or "... the sources are not good enough"
 * Accusatory. "I suspected you either controlled that account also or you were working with that editor ..." as well as the COI and meatpuppet accusations.
 * Abusive of logic. One example of a logical fallacy you committed is that of denying the antecedent.(e.g., "If he's slow, he'll lose the race.  Since he isn't slow, he won't lose the race."  Note there could be many other causes for losing the race).  In your case, you took a valid statement - "If he's obscure then few if any sources would be reporting on his life and career" - and twisted it to falsely infer - "If he's not obscure (i.e., notable) then many sources would be reporting on his life and career."  (Yes, this argument has likelihood merit, but that was not part of your logic.) And you used this false argumentation throughout in supporting your position.  I throughout wanted to address conformance to Wiki GNG.


 * I hope this makes it clear that I did not attack you the person. In context of your Mike Cline page statements, I wanted to stress my objection to your position and attitude.  I have respect for your person and your personal efforts to try to do what you think would make things better on Wiki.


 * Re: it's unlikely I'll "win". I must note that this is not a game.  I do not believe that we are here to win or lose.  We are here to do what is right.  We are here to do what is proper.  We are here to promote the objectives of the entire Wiki community.  We are here to support publication of honest, reliable reference material that can be accessed by the Web community.  We are here to create better articles.  In all of my posts I simply proposed my emphasis of what the Wiki policies, guidelines and rules state and how the article is in conformance.  I believe that in concert we can continually make Wiki better.  For what it's worth, I believe that you are an excellent reviewer and you are an very good editor when you put personal dogmas aside.  As always, your reply is welcome.   Ann12h (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Andre Julian Headshot 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Andre Julian Headshot 2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
January ( talk ) 10:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 431800dc6af588d769e96061d6709358
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!