User talk:North8000/Archive N

= Archive of User Noviseminary Related Discussions =

For reasons which I think are obvious when one reads several of these, I have an archive for interactions with this user. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not archiving at the time and this was in essence removing these from my talk page. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Your run in with Novaseminary
I noticed that you have had some issues with Novaseminary. He is one of the most vicious, vindictive, destructive people in Wikipedia. Pretty much his entire interaction with others in Wikipedia is picking fights with and fighting with people. He is so vindictive that he stalks people he has had fights with.

What makes him so unusually destructive is the he is so expert at playing the Wikipedia game, and USING the Wikipedia system as a way of fighting, and disguising his fighting as legitimate Wikipedia work. He is expert at fooling Wikipedia administrators who do not have the time to do the through review and investigation. You probably had some flaw which he capitalized on

Novaseminary also hides his “rap sheet” by badgering everyone to never write him on his own talk page, and then continuously and immediately erasing everything written on there so that it would be a huge amount of work to review his history on how he relates to others, which is basically manipulating the Wikipedia system to have nothing but fight after fight after fight. Feel free to copy and use this to inform others when needed.12.7.82.66 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had some more recent contacts that have been better. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Newcomer
You reverted the removal of several ELs I made at Carrie Newcomer. I have redone them, one at a time, with more specific references in the edit as to why. Let me know if that isn't sufficient. Novaseminary (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:TravelersDream 002.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TravelersDream 002.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I had explicit permission for the required licensing from the owner when I put it up, and indicated that with the image, but did not provide evidence. Now (3/16/10) the owner has emailed Wikipedia per the details described in the template and confirmed the above and provided contact info for any further questions, and I have a copy of that email. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Traveler's Dream
I have nominated Traveler's Dream, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. It is a good effort, I just don't see that they meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Novaseminary (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Traveler's Dream AfD option
Hello, North8000. I see that the AfD for Traveler's Dream has caused you angst. Please see User_talk:DougT1235 for an option I highlighted on DougT1235's talk page that might give you more time. Novaseminary (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Dear North8000, I see that you continue to think that I somehow acted improperly with respect to the former Traveler's Dream article and that you continue to attack me personally for my actions regarding this article. Of course, having that opinion is your right. But I would ask that you not make personal attacks against me on talk pages or wherever else. With respect to this comment on an administrator's talk page, I would note that I think your statement is inappropriate.

First, I did not assault the Traveler's Dream article. I only edited it in the first place because I thought it might be notable. I was convinced otherwise after taking a closer look. In fact, I linked to the "pre-assault" version on the AfD itself with this comment, so even if I did assault the article and my edits somehow turned a notable group into a non-notable group, anyone could have seen what I did.

Second, I was not obsessed with deleting the article. If you look at the userfied version in your sandbox, the only fully-formed, properly formatted references are there because I took the time to clean them up. All of the removed text that you still seem to think somehow showed notability I removed because it was unsourced puffery. The pre-assault version of the article was simply unacceptable by Wikipedia standards.

I had never even heard of the group until I read the article. My goal in first editing the article was to prevent advertising and other non-encyclopedic text from making its way into Wikipedia. As I noted before, it was reverting a link spammer that I came across the Carrie Newcomer article which was our first interaction. It appears that you think all of the Traveler's Dream article drama was my retribution for your reversion of my EL removal on the Newcomer article. But think about it for a second: on that article, I just redeleted the offending ELs with more full explanations in the edit history and then left you a note on your talk page. I didn't make the AfD nomination for almost two more weeks (mostly because I wanted to see if the group actually was notable). And now you even seem to agree that for Wikipedia purposes the group is not notable. So this was slow motion retribution for an action that the Wikipedia community (and you, it now appears) thinks should have happened anyway. That seems like a stretch to me.

Could it be that I encountered an article that needed serious work and raised notability concerns, I worked a bit on it, asked for those more knowledgeable editors to assert and prove notability, and then, only after it became apparent that the subject of the article failed notability, did I AfD the article? I didn’t even say (and still haven’t) anything negative about the group. I have no reason to, it is irrelevant. They could be fantastic and fail notability or terrible annd meet it with sources to spare. As I noted in the initial nomination comment, they might be great. This wasn’t personal. I would appreciate it if you didn’t make it that way. If you have a problem with me as an editor, please use the dispute resolution process rather than continuing to make personal attacks.

Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Novaseminary,

By a preponderance of evidence/observations/analysis, (and I am the type to look at and think about a whole lot of things)  I still think the same thing. My choice of words here means that I'm only about 98% sure, e.g. that I could be wrong.

BTW I feel that accusing me of personal attacks when in fact I never even mentioned you is more of the same cleverness. And, in fact, not only did I not mention you, I did not even say it was the AFD nominator, and, in all honesty, had a duo in mind when I said that.


 * (Note added later...I subsequently learned that a falsely accusing someone of a personal attack is itself a personal attack. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you sincerely feel that I am genuinely wrong and care what I think, then we should discuss this further. (A non-public venue that still maintains privacy would be best, if there were such a thing.) Otherwise I consider this to be all in the past.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I subsequently added more to this to your talk page and didn't want to duplicate it here.

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR - Machine vision
Just an FYI, we are both at 3 reversion on the Machine vision article. Of course, we should be careful not to violate WP:3RR. Cheers. Novaseminary (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ??? I don't understand. I thought that I was at one and you were at zero. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite. For 3RR purposes a revert is not the same as an "undo". Per 3RR, "A 'revert' in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word." You edits subsequent to your undo don't bother me at all, but it is not like you and I can decide to exempt each other from 3RR. Considering the spamming that has gone on on this article, we wouldn't want to give a spammer any reason to report us. Keep in mind, though, adding text that had never been in the article, including sources, is not a revert under this definition. So, it is not like we can't do anything, just can't reinsert previously removed text (or delete text). Novaseminary (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See, this edit, minor as it is, is arguably a revert for 3RR purposes (and by my count puts you over the limit). On a related note, please keep in mind WP:COI when editing this article, including adding and citing to sources. Novaseminary (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC).
 * I still don't see how that is a revert. But either way thanks for the heads up.
 * Regarding your COI note, what are you implying, or what led you to mention that? North8000 (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You said on that article's talk page that you have 12 years in the industry, so you obviously have more than a passing interest in this subject. Som other edits you have made in the past led me to wonder about a conflict, too, but I see no need to go into that now. Anyway, we all need to follow WP:COI, so it isn't necessarily a criticism or anything. But as an industry peson, I would think you need to be more careful here in that regard than in, say, editing on today's featured article, Chetco River (unless, of course, you are developing property along the Chetco River!). Novaseminary (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Again, my edits on this article were just minor very academic tweaks and updates until today when you deleted 3/4 of the article. But, as long as you are not implying anything, we'll just leave it as being a friendly note by you and a thank you for that. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent unsourced additions
I'm sure you know this (since you have commented--extensively--on related pages), but it is best to add new facts to articles with sources so that your additions comply with WP:V. Of course, many newer users do not know this, and there still remain many, many unsourced facts and articles leftover from before WP:V was enforced with regularity. Nonetheless, this is not reason for experienced editors to add unsourced material as you did recently at Starved Rock State Park, Naperville, Illinois , Lisle, Illinois , and McHenry, Illinois. Your personal knowledge is not a sufficient basis to add new facts without sources (WP:OR & WP:V). Remember, only a dolt would ever trust a fact on Wikipedia simply because it appears on Wikipedia. But we can be quite useful to people, and raise the value of WP, if we source our articles so readers can verify the facts themselves. Novaseminary (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the wp:v standard is "challenged or likely to be challenged", and unsourced fact is not per se a violation of it, and so the presence of such is a norm for new edits/articles as well as old.
 * Are you following me? North8000 (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nova, I think North has a point. While it's always good to have citations, it's only necessary for things that are at all controversial. If you want to challenge his additions, then you can certainly request citations. But if nobody doubts it, it doesn't actually need citations. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But the very first sentence of V is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The edits you made that I mentioned above did not include any way to verify what you said is true. Can you attribute them to a reliable source or is it just OR? While I might trust that you mean well and have personal knowledge of the facts you insert, why would I trust editors with little or no edit history? And rather than make readers examine the credibility of whomever added a fact (and go through the trouble to determine who added that fact in the first place), why not put a link to an RS so there is no doubt? Why the aversion to sources? This is partly why (in addition to your disregard for a guideline) another editor also reverted your (North8000) edits at USS Missouri (BB-63) (as discussed here). An OR is never ok, challenged or not (despite what you claimed or hoped here). Novaseminary (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are going off topic. This was about whether or not including a statement without a cite is per se (=categorically) wrong which was the core premise of your post.
 * This debate aside, back to my question.....are you following me? North8000 (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I follow you, but I didn't say including a statement without a cite is categorically wrong, I said "it is best to add new facts to articles with sources". There are statements you can add without it being best practice or necessary to add a cite (including summary/topic sentences, etc.), though even those must be verifiable. If you want to avoid the problems you have had at Machine vision, USS Missouri (BB-63), and elsewhere, it is best to not add new facts without adding a corresponding source (or pointer to an existing source). Verifiability, verifiability, verifiability. If you want to add value to the encyclopedia instead of getting caught up in talk page arguments, just add sources. It puzzles me as to why an editor who spends a significant amount of time debating points on talk pages refuses to take an extra few seconds to add a cite in the few times that editor actually edits an article. Of course, how you spend your time is your business; do what you like, but your edits are much less likely to stand, and that seems like a shame. Novaseminary (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You completely mis-characterized events at those two articles. The only contention at Machine Vision was when I reverted your deletion of 3/4 of the article, a deletion which wiped 7 years of work by other editors. And the reason someone removed my addition on the USS Missouri article was NOT for sourcing, it's because they didn't want even the most prominent of cinematic and video featurings of the USS Missouri to be in what was interpreted as being a military history article. I left it as open request for comment on the talk page.

When I am asking if you are following me, I am not asking if you comprehend me, I am asking if you are following me around Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think I mischaracterized the "events" at the two articles. There is really no need to go into it, the edits and discussion there can stand on their own. In any case, I only wrote to suggest and request that you add sources when you add new facts. It can save a lot of hassle and can really help improve WP. Novaseminary (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the third non-answer to my question confirms it. Please stop following me. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Follow you? It is not like you edit many articles, especially in light of the volume of your talk page contributions. I don't go around joining your many discussions. I focus on articles. Regardless, your recent addition of a source at Starved Rock State Park at my request highlights why sourcing is so important (even if your citation was woefully inadequate). Because I was able to decipher the chapter to which you cited, I fleshed out the cite with these edits. Upon reviewing the source (which now anyone can easily do by clicking through from the article), it turns out the "fact" you added had an error and lacked context so that readers may have been left with the wrong impression. It was not archaeologists from the University of Illinois who excavated at the park, but rather, the University of Illinois at Chicago. Of course, that is not a huge error, but more importantly, the single sentence you added made it seem as if the 1974 excavation was all there was, or was at least a big deal or significant piece of information. It turns out, per the source, that the 1974 excavation wasn't the most significant excavation at the park. Earlier excavations by the Illinois State Museum and the University of Chicago were first, and more significant. I added the context. None of that would be in the article now if I had not demanded that the new sentence, which on its face seemed ok, be supported by a source. The article would have been left with a misstatement and readers with a misimpression. Novaseminary (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above makes no sense and or is erroneous on several counts, but I don't think that this conversation is going anywhere. Each time I refute one of your misstatements here you replace it with more misstatements. Please stop following me. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock or Meatpuppets?
You might want to consider or respond to this and/or this (and note that this IP also posted this). Please be sure to read WP:SOCK & WP:MEAT. If these happen to be coincidences, my apologies; please disregard. If not, please stop. Novaseminary (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not as you imply / mis-represent. Please see response there. So this is how you respond to my request to please stop following me. You have now racked many severe policy violations. Stop! North8000 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What policies have I violated? Novaseminary (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The most obvious is wp:harassment. Stop! North8000 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Which part? Of course, I have never threatened you, never released your personal information, and we've never had private or off-wiki communication. That leaves WP:HOUND. As per that section (with my bolding), "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That is all I have done, You might disagree with the substance of my discussion, but you can't argue that I have not raised policy concerns related to your edits and behavior. And if "It's not as (I) imply / mis-represent", how do you explain it? Are those socks or meat puppets? Novaseminary (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, see answer there. Please stop this obsessive behavior, and please stop following me! North8000 (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not edited any new pages you have edited recently, nor joined any conversations you are involved with, so please stop asking me to stop "following" you. (And as noted in the section above this, the last time I edited an edit of yours I found a mistake, and was subsequently able to cleanup a source, add a new source, and add a paragraph of new information; not a bad outcome.) And, as for my notice to you re: your possible socking, you never had to reply, here or on DougT's talk page. I would have let it go with the warning/demand that you not do it again that I left above. I wouldn't have had any further communication with you about the issue had you not made personal attacks against me and indicated that the evidence I presented was not what it was. Regardless, whether or not you have ever done it in the past, you have now been warned to not sock. If any other sock-like behavior occurs, I may submit you to WP:SPI. If you continue to make personal attacks (rather than explaining the evidence, or even denying that you have meat or sock puppeted, or just moving on), I may submit you to WP:DRR. Alternatively, if you follow policy and only make good faith mistakes, we will get along fine. Nobody is out to get you, WP just works better when people follow the rules as best they can. Novaseminary (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, see answer there. But, no, I never have. You have been following me for a long time, and recently went on a tear / dramatically increased it when I undid your deletion of 3/4 of the Machine Vision article.   The is obvious, the odds of what has occurred occurring by random are one in trillions of trillions of trillions. And the dialog that you started in the previous section speaks for itself.  Unless you want to keep it going, I am going to end and archive these discussions. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Machine vision
Speaking of following people around, this posting to the machine vision talk page was inappropriate. Please do not edit war (threatening to revert what even you must acknowledge are good edits, rather than selectively reinserting sourced text--if there is any) or make personal attacks (questioning my psychological state) or encourage editors to refrain from making constructive edits (WP:OWN). If you follow through on your edit war threat, I will be forced to report you to the incident board for edit warring, personal attacks, and COI (though, while all of that evidence is readily discernable per your edit history, to avoid WP:OUTING, I'll present the evidence in private to admins). Alternatively, we could both work to constructively improve the article by adding relevant facts with sources (new sources would be great, but pointers to existing sources would be fine) placed in context so the reader comes away from the article with an accurate sense of things which they could easily verify. The latter sounds like a much better way to go to me. Novaseminary (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are duplicating / splitting the discussion here? (but, fine) The edit history at the article will clearly show who followed who. Please quit with the usual inuendo  and mis-statements. I said that tomorrow I was going to restore the section that you gutted, and then, if you gut it again, do an RFC to get more eyes on it. That is certainly not an "edit war threat" . I think that editing rather than gutting the article is the way to go.  And, as I said, an RFC to get more eyes on it would be a good next step if this can't be resolved. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Becuase this discussion is not entirely about the article, I brought talk related to your behavior here. And as for your allegation (inappropriately on the article talk page) that I have followed you and "trashed" articles you have edited, I would note that I have edited recently a half dozen articles you had recently edited. On 4 of them I added a single fact tag and left the unsourced text you added. On one, I added a single fact tag to the unsourced text you added and cleaned-up other entirely unrelated text. On another I first tagged the unsourced text you added, then you added a source. I verified the source, corrected an error you made in the single formerly unsourced sentence you added, and then added an entire paragraph based on the source (after I figured out what the source actually was and cleaned it up, too) and added another source for a completely unrelated, formerly unsourced section for good measure. There is no trashing going on. Even on the machine vision article, I did remove much unsourced cruft, after leaving it tagged for some time. But I also added sections, facts, and all but one of the existing sources. Length does not equal quality or usefulness. It often equals OR, as it did in this case. And culling, and citing does not equal gutting. Why not propose the text you want to insert on the article's talk page? We might agree on aspects of it, assuming you can back it up with sources. Then, bring what we can't agree on to an RfC. Novaseminary (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that on the machine vision talk page, you wrote "I have no attachment to any part of this article." I can show fairly conclusively that this is not true, and that your attachment is personal and probably financial. So, whatever you reinsert, please be very, very careful to comply with WP:COI. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You pulled that out of context to reverse it's meaning. The exact quote is
 * "Other than a sense of duty to prevent your mass deletions of 3/4 of the article and 7 years of work by many editors, I have no attachment to any part of this article. Have at it! Just please be constructive and build vs. just tagging/nitpicking/deleting".
 * So that was a clearly statement that I did not care if you deleted any particular parts. And that remains the case. Which brings me back to your previous paragraph. What I propose is the bulk of that section restored, and leaving out particular items that you want left out. If that is cool with you, let me know, and also any suggestions on how to implement it.  I was thinking of a restoration of the section followed by you deleting any PARTICULAR items that you want out. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And proceed with this discussion to the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you meant by the sentence, keep in mind my warning (it applies whether you have denied a connection or not). As to the substance of the article, I was surgical in what I removed. I left much in there. Every particular thing I thought should be removed (based on policy and guidelines, not whim or my personal preferences), I removed leaving some I think needs better sourcing with a tag. Nothing more. I did not just delete, I collapsed and summarized, too. And since then, I have added facts, sources, etc., to that and other sections. So, other than returning it to a bulleted list (which is its own problem and proposal to discuss on talk if you think that is a better way to present the information), please propose the particular sentences or sentence fragments you want to add (or reinsert) (per WP:BURDEN) on the article's talk, with a brief explanation of why and an idea of what source or sources supports the inclusion. We can go from there. Novaseminary (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will continue at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. For clarity, I would (this time) create a new section entitled "Proposed reinsertions" or the like. That will allow us to actually discuss particular facts without all of the general, futile discussion getting in the way. Novaseminary (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR at machine vision article
By my count, we are both at (or at least close) to three reversions in the last 24 hours at machine vision. Let's be sure not to break WP:3RR. And on that article's talk and in edit summaries, please try to focus on content rather than your interpretation of my behavior (WP:TPG). If you want to comlplain about that, do it at a notice board or on here. But I would save the keystrokes, if I were you. Novaseminary (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll avoid the main topics here unless you care to do otherwise. Long story short, I don't think that there is any real content dispute at the article, nor anything that I would contemplate any near-term action on unless that note that made no sense came back without discussion/consensus, or anything wild-new happened there. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. This just highlights why calling me names, rather than addressing the substance of my concern, is unconstructive. All I wanted was to add a timeframe rather than rely on the temporal description of ”newer” tied to something else that also lackec a timeframe. I was hoping you would just add something from the source noting when the technology arose. You refused and made accusations against me. So I added a timeframe as best I could. It was never meant to be a battle. Novaseminary (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The source does not have that info (level of detail). "Newer" (in comparison to the framegrabber method) is the best (most specific) possible summary that does not inject unsourced info. The change that you just made is not erroneous, but it leaves an erroneous impression (about 7 years off) about when the direct connection technology became available.  North8000 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Welding and machine vision - COI?
North, Is the machine vision company you claim to work for (or at least you have claimed to work in that industry for over 13 years now, maybe not at a company) invovled in weld inspection, monitoring, testing, or analysis? If so, would you care to disclose your conflict and how you plan to avoid violating WP:COI? Editing on a general article about the industry you work for is one thing (though I have my concerns with that, even), creating related essay-like articles, especially this section, sets off more alarms. Novaseminary (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * After hundreds and hundreds of interaction and observations over almost two years there is no longer "assuming" of any type, there is knowing Please cease your obsessive battling and following me around (to put it nicely) behavior. In this case it is a complete mis-reading of wp:coi in an attempt to mis-use it. Expertise is not a coi.  On the latter, see the afd summary on this article which exposes the ridiculousness & fishing and bating nature of what you just wrote.   Please cease and desist. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean Articles_for_deletion/Weld_monitoring,_testing_and_analysis. North, I suggest you simply ignore him and finish writing the article, so other people can see the real extent of the topic and decide if it's worth keeping or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to revise your ”cease and desist” language. WP:NLT. I just am concerned that you are pushing products or processes that your company sells. But you haven't denied it or explained your role in the industry. And expertise is great until it leads to text that fails WP:NOTMANUAL #7. Novaseminary (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I absolutely deny it, and please stop this harassment. And, as you already know and deliberately "mis-understood", telling you to cease and desist this behavior is just that; quit the baseless grasping at straws with the WP:NLT linking.  And if you see any company-specific product or process promotion in either article specifically bring it up as such at the articles(s).   North8000 (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive732

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772

Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780