User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 25

OTRS Permission confirmation
Hello there Sphilbrick, could you please do me a big favour, as I would be very grateful. Two emails of permission have been sent to Wikimedia Commons OTRS but there has been no reply and no OTRS number given. The image is File:Jodie Connor.jpg. Please could you give it a OTRS number. My best regards - MarkMysoe (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a search for any email containing "File:Jodie Connor.jpg" and came up empty. I tried again with "Jodie Connor" and still came up empty. User error -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tried a couple other search items and still failed. That said, the search is suspiciously fast, which makes me wonder if there is something wrong - free text searchs normally take some time. If you can give me a date, I can search all submissions on a day. User error -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, found it-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked at it, I see why it hasn't been processed (other than the fact that we ar backlogged). As you note there are two emails, but that raises a red flag - we have two emails from two differnet addresses for the same image.
 * As an aside, did you find that permission wording somewhere? If so, I want to remove it. Our preferred wording is at Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. Whever someone uses non-standard wording, one has to read carefully to see if is complies with all the requirements. I see your wording as borderline acceptable, but some other agents may see it differently. Of course, we still have to resolve why there are two emails from two different names.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there Sphilbrick, I have re-sent another email with Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries as you suggested I do. My regards - MarkMysoe (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm watching for it. Surprised it hasn't shown yet.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has not yet arrived, and I need to leave. I added an OTRS received template, which should keep it from being deleted for a week or more; I'll look for the email in the morning.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it, not sure what happened, it ended up someplace I didn't expect. but I found it and processed it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help Sphilbrick, I honestly appreciate it. MarkMysoe (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Strictness of the copyright law in the US is fiction only?
Exist big reasons to think that is so. And without any doubts: the speeches of Hillary Clinton - the most competent opinion on this issue (Secretary of State ). The important topic. I hope that owner of the page - not against of such topic at him territory. - 2.94.209.45 (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
 * The more I read about copyright law, the more I'd like to see some changes. However, not even Hillary Clinton can exempt us from the law, so until it is changed. I plan to follow it as best I can.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I want find concrete legal act (legal force will give big favor). In the such case can make Wikipedia free of different troubles, which can be related to the limitations of copyright. Everyone can look for to achive the common the good in the scope of Wikimedia. Interesting detail: via http://www.humanrights.gov we can learn, that as incentive for copyright holder to create new and useful intellectual property, is used not famous till this moment method (protection of copyright in Internet), but totally other thing. Full freedom (FREE FLOW) in Internet, is great reason to make innovations (be creator is not the same, that be greedy owner). This concept (modern point of view in the age of Internet) is suggested from the side of the competent in USA politicians. Internet is common Framework for all people in the world (equality). About this says Hillary and not only. I think that be subject matter of copyright in Internet can be few categories: software, websites ... (when something not has relation to Internet and to computers, the such property can be subject matter of copyright only in real world). - 2.94.209.45 (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC).


 * This is the reality already world wide (from 5 July 2012). Here is the reaction of Hillary Clinton on the such global event (she welcomes it and confirms good relation on this issue from the side of the US government). This page now is more actual (in several times), than any free license absolutely. What do you think about the situation? Question for Sphibrick and for other people also. Thanks ! - 2.92.76.29 (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Sorry, I've tuned out. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, in what meaning? Trouble of translation, may be. - 2.92.76.29 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Meaning you originally contacted me claiming you were providing permission for some material, which turned out not to be true. Lately, you are arguing, it appears, that Wikipedia should ignore the copyright laws. That isn't going to happen. So I won't stop you from posting, but I've stopped paying attention.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  02:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong. And the UN gives the Freedom on Internet not simply so. The such thing can be useful only in case of the validity to use subject matter of copyright ..

What can be fully on legal grounds for the usage on Internet freely (from 5 July 2012)? Education, research, charity, cultural diversity, development, fighting with poverty (MDG). Wikipedia - encyclopedia, which respects copyright and has the own rules ( has full right to place on-line materials in the articles: because gives Knowlege for the good of society). This resolution by the UN is welcomed from the side of the US government and can bring favor somewhen in future. For example, in the case of claim from the side of some bad copyright owners. Who can be called bad copyright owner? The such owner, who acts against Wikipedia (in the same time, Wikipedia has full certitude in legality of its actions). This resolution by the UN (5 July 2012) will appear in difficult hour and bad owner will be sent in knockout (as last argument). The tool to defend Wikipedia of any troubles in the relevant scope (copyright). And text here has red colour to show the importance of this Resolution by the UN. The fair sword of Wikipedia sleeps currently on your page (and waits its hour in future and in any moment).

Take part in this discussion not means: for or against (neutral relation). I think so. Thank you for attention! - 2.92.180.78 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Which terrible reality was displayed in the result of dialogue on this page. Resolution by the UN makes the warning of any double standarts. When you on the side of copyright holders in this context - you hate all the Humanity (because your closed this topic: as Nazism! About this will be created report for the organizations on Human Rights without any doubts. - 178.66.129.134 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Hello. He right in some sence. + If compare the "law" of Godwin with document by the UN (this is the highest legal force in the world for all people) - not very rightly, including and softly speaking. Resolution by the UN from 5 July - REVOLUTION on Internet. I think company the Creative Commons has very big fear now. Wild paradox exists. Freedom on Internet = to be free to get benefits (grant of License). The life is cruel and does not know of mercy. Thanks for attention! - 2.94.13.231 (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Please read Godwin's law-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

World Resources Forum
Hi Sphilbrick. My bot generates a list of articles that have editors' signatures in them, and one of them it found was World Resources Forum. Normally I just remove the sigs but in this case it looks like there's a copyright notice at the top... I noticed you'd edited it since then so I thought I'd first check with you to see if that needed to stay there for some reason. 28bytes (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, took me a minute to figure out what was going on. I processed an OTRS request, added to talk page, and removed the CSD template, but missed that there was an additional comment below the template. I removed it, but thanks for asking.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And my bot thanks you as well. 28bytes (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

File:JohnLloydMiller.jpg
Hi, There's a question about File:JohnLloydMiller.jpg on Media copyright questions, where a user is asking why the OTRS permission was added to the Wikipedia file instead of being added to the. Can you please help him with that? Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Permission confirmation
I would like to thank you again Sphilbrick for your help. I have uploaded "File:David Dawood.jpg" and "File:Nathan Retro.jpeg" on behalf of the image creators and copyright holders. A email has been sent using the Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries format. Please Sphilbrick, I would be forever grateful if you can help me to fast track the "File:David Dawood.jpg" and "File:Nathan Retro.jpeg" with OTRS numbers. MarkMysoe (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Handled, and email sent, which should result in better service in the future.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, thanks. Happy to do the work, nice to know that it is noticed.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Re
Either this is quite simple or i have done i completely wrong. Do i basically have to check, then tag for deletion if it is a copypaste (or revert to prior version if possible)? Backlog, here i come x) benzband  ( talk ) 20:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't quite that simple, but you are far from being completely wrong.


 * It is a rather blatant copy and paste. What makes it less than straightforward is that the source is an EPA site, which is almost certainly Federal Government, and therefore public domain. That doesn't mean everything is fine, but the material is not properly sourced. Even though one can use public domain material without license, we still need to properly reference it. Second, the style of public domain material is often not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.


 * I need to think some more on this. But I appreciate you jumping in.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspected as much. ^^ I've removed the tag, now shall i try to rewrite and attribute it whilst citing the source? (i think i've found the license here). BTW, here's my second attempt. benzband  ( talk ) 21:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to run out shortly, will look at the second one later.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted a question here-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, i'm now watching for the answer :) benzband  ( talk ) 21:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm doing some (apparently) easy ones for now (July 22). benzband  ( talk ) 08:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maximov images
In response to your question on my talk page, I sent an email containing the full release of the photos of Maximov's artwork into the public domain into Wikipedia english permissions, which was forwarded from Alexei Maximov himself. He released the photos into the public domain so that they might be used on Wikipedia upon my request; I contacted him upon deciding to write a page upon him due to his London opening in early 2012.Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a barnstar! (^______^)
And thanks for dealing with Arrowhead Refinery Company. benzband ( talk ) 19:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well someone ought to think through whether it meets the requirements for inclusion - I see it as a close call, but can see value in including Superfund sites, but that's not a copyright issue. Thank you for getting involved in CP, hope you will continue. They can be exhausting, but I end up learning about things that I might never find otherwise. Plus, the connections can be weird. After looking at that Superfund site, I decided to poke around to see what coverage we have of Superfund sites, then checked out the EPA site on the subject, then decided to look at some Superfund sites in New England, saw that one was listed for Somersworth New Hampshire, a town I'm familiar with, so I checked out the town page, and saw a postcard from 1910, and recognized the home, but recognized it because they were my next door neighbors, but not in that state, so now I have to track that down and correct it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does that to me too. benzband  ( talk ) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edit (page emptying) and edit war by IP user
Here. Please intervene. Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible the IP is trying to vandalize; if so they will be blocked, but we like to start by WP:AGF. Maybe they think the material they removed is wrong, and they decided to remove it. They may have tried again, because they aren't a regular editor, and didn't understand their edit was reverted; maybe they thought it just didn't work the first time.


 * Please don't call it disruptive editing on the first edit. Very few editors know about edit summaries on their first edit, so we have no idea why they removed it. Let's wait until we are sure they are vandalizing to call it vandalism. (That's why I told them it looks LIKE vandalism.)


 * I've added it to my watch list-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure a newbie is going to understand what Wikipedia means by "disruptive" or even "vandalism". If this were me, I would have reverted with an edit summary of "Revert unexplained deletion".  If they still fail to provide a reason, I would just ask point blank, "Why are you removing this?".  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "disruptive" may not be clear, which is part of the reason I counselled against it. Note that I did NOT call it vandalism, I pointed out that it could look like vandalism. Did you see my post to the IP? -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my comment was meant for E4024. AQFK (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, now I get it. Sorry, trying to do too many things at once.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Phil, thanks AQFK. I am not much more than a newcomer myself; moreover I have a Mediterranean component and sometimes may tend to exaggerate. :-) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor Vandalism as of 07/23/2012
Thank you again for your help with the previous "Anonymous Editor Vandalism" issue Sphilbrick. I am sorry to trouble you once more with the same nonsense. If you are tired of this, I fully understand. Please recommend another admin that I should approach if you would prefer not to deal with this anymore.

It looks like the latest "anonymous" has a new "name". It is "Logiharmonyone". Apparently he or she wants to continue the edit war on the Harmony, Florida page.

I attempted to get an explanation for Logiharmonyone's changes, to no avail.

Here is what was in place since 2008 prior to Logiharmonyone's edits:

In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by    Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others promised by the original developer have either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the part of the new developers have created much controversy and consternation on the part of long standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by    Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been documented in detail by a residents website with an    open newsgroup.[4]

4. ^ "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup". Harmony Residents. March 5, 2006 .... Retrieved 2008-08-12.

This time "Logiharmonyone" has no stated rationale in the edit log for the changes.

What was removed is historically accurate. Whereas what was added is not only inaccurate, but it also looks like it was written by a middle-school kid with a personal ax to grind.

Once again it would appear that an anonymous person like "Logiharmonyone" wants to revise the history of Harmony. It seems that the primary purpose of the edit is to undermine the credibility of the Harmony newsgroup. The newsgroup not only serves the civic purpose of connecting citizens to public officials in and around Harmony, but it also serves to document ongoing issues with the development and the developer.

This is not the first time. This is actually the 4th time that the paragraph referenced above has been tampered with. The initial occurrence was in 2010 when you helped with the Harmony, Florida page for the first time Sphilbrick.

Here is what another Wikipedia moderator (Phantomsteve) wrote about the 2010 changes:

RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material: No evidence that the cited website is all the work of one person - personal attack

Prior to the current changes, it can be proven (with IP addresses) that the President of Harmony Development Company (or someone using his computer) actually expunged all references critical of the developer from the Harmony, Florida page on December 7th of last year. You can see it in the Harmony, Florida page history. When discovered, this same person scrambled to undo the changes without realizing that everything was being logged by Wikipedia.

Can you please take another look into this Sphilbrick? GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got a meeting shortly, I'll try to look into it after the meeting-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I urge you to avoid using the word "vandalism" in situations such as this. That word has a specific meaning, and does not generally apply to all edits that might deserve removal. The most recent edit was problematic, and I undid it, but I specifically did not use the Rollback tool, which is intended for pure vandalism.


 * Wikipedia does not prohibit the inclusion of negative information, indeed, an article with only positive information when information with a negative connation exists can be problematic. However, addition of claims about "disgruntled" residents has to meet a few hurdles, one of which is support by a reliable source. That wasn't present, so I reverted to the prior version. However, removal of material that does not conform to policy is not automatically deemed a vadlism edit. In many cases, they made by well-meaning individuals.


 * This isn't my area of strength, expertise or interest. I have the page on my watch list, but I have 8000 pages on my watchlist, so it is easy for a single edit to escape my attention. I will leave it on my watch list, please feel free to post to me as you did if I miss something, and if it becomes a time-consuming issue, I'll poke around for another admin with more experience in the area.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I will endeavor to use a more neutral tone when bringing such activity to the attention of admins in the future. I have little doubt that it will happen again. And NP, about the page watch. I have no problem keeping an eye on it and letting you know. Thank you Sphilbrick. BTW, are you an actuary? -- GeorgeSchiro (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am an actuary.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that my edits were removed from the Harmony Florida page. I'm a bit unsure why my edits were removed, yet the edits by GeorgeSchiro are deemed permissible. The below excerpt from the page is nothing more than the opinion of GeorgeSchiro who is in no way a neutral party given the fact that (due to his irrational actions) he has been barred from all property owned by the developer of the community and thus has an axe to grind. The citation for this section, "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup", is a Google group created and moderated by GeorgeSchiro and in no way can be viewed as a reliable or independent source. In fact, if you were to read the posts in the Google group (though I would not suggest you waste your time), 99% of the contributors disagree with GeorgeSchiro's opinions.

In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by    Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others promised by the original developer have either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the part of the new developers have created much controversy and consternation on the part of long standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by    Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been documented in detail by a residents website with an    open newsgroup.[4]

4. ^ "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup". Harmony Residents. March 5, 2006 .... Retrieved 2008-08-12.

The same applies to the following entry on the page:

In 2012 long-standing Harmony residents were still awaiting these promised amenities (for almost a decade) [11]: Businesses in Town Square / Thriving Commercial / Vibrant Town Center Clubhouse Facilities for Recreation Equestrian Club (for all resident horse owners) Farmers Market Lake Club Open Access (to all 11,000 acres) Organized Field Sports Town Entry Spring House

Bottom line is, if my edits were not considered valid, the two above made by GeorgeSchiro should not be considered valid either.

Logiharmonyone (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You raise some important concerns. I cannot address at the moment, not because it is unimportant, but because I need to review much of the history to make sure that the subject is being treated neutrally.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * SPhilbrick, please bear in mind that while "Logiharmonyone" prefers to remain anonymous, it is my understanding that he is a vocal supporter of Starwood / Harmony Development Company. Based on a recent email I received, I believe that he is a current or former paid vendor of Starwood / Harmony Development Company. Yes, I am a customer of Starwood / Harmony Development Company. But who better to offer an alternative perspective on what the developer has been doing in Harmony all these years (ie. "the other side of the story")? It is obvious that the vast majority of edits to the Harmony page over the years have been by anonymous developer agents. In fact, I am convinced that the Wikipedia Harmony page was originally created by Starwood people.


 * Logiharmonyone wrote:

the fact that (due to his irrational actions) he has been barred from all property owned by the developer


 * What irrational actions? Clearly "Logiharmonyone" is referring to the "Trespass Warning" letter issued to me without due process and as a direct response to my exposing the false edits to the Wikipedia page about Harmony (what I believe to be vandalism). Those edits were done from the computer of Shad Tome, President of Harmony Development Company. This is a provable fact. It is also a fact that what was removed from the Harmony page on Wikipedia by Mr. Tome (and later inaccurately altered by "Logiharmonyone") is also provably true.


 * What "Logiharmonyone" didn't tell you SPhilbrick is that while I have been reporting the facts about the failings of Starwood / Harmony Development Company since 2006, I was barred from developer property 2 days after reporting the truth about the Harmony Development president's removal from Wikipedia of provable facts that have been in place since 2008. Thus "being barred" was the direct result of the "irrational act" of blowing the whistle on a multi-billion dollar real-estate company.


 * Many witnesses have come forward with testimonials that confirm that the so-called "irrational actions" mentioned by "Logiharmonyone" are totally fabricated. Starwood / Harmony Development has not a single witness to support its allegations.


 * This is a "David and Goliath" scenario SPhilbrick. Please read Developer Dirty Tricks - CONFIRMED and The Empire Strikes Back articles in the HarmonyFL Google newsgroup. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have and I will produce any documentation that you may require. I will also provide my phone number and my email address as needed. There are also several other Harmony residents who will confirm what I have written.


 * Please note also that while many people have posted in the HarmonyFL newsgroup (all using their real names since that is a requirement), "Logiharmonyone" has never written a single word to refute any allegation against the developer. In fact, while the newsgroup currently has 80 members, "Logiharmonyone" is not among them. And the 99% that "Logiharmonyone" refers to are 3 people (all with a special relationship with the developer or with realtor connections). There are at least that many who have posted in support of what I have been writing. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will try to look into this over the weekend.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to follow-up on this inquiry. I respect your time and this is certainly not as important to me as it appears to be to GeorgeSchiro, but allowing GeorgeSchiro's edits to remain on this page are contrary to Wikipedia policies for the reasons I mentioned previously: 1) GeorgeSchiro is not a neutral party capable of presenting unbiased factual information due to his public disdain for and legal issues with the company developing Harmony, which I'm told resulted in him being legally barred from Harmony Development property due to his harassment of a college intern regarding previous edits to the Harmony, Florida Wikipedia entry that he deemed "vandalism"; 2) The citations GeorgeSchiro presents as support for his contributions to the page come from a Google forum created and moderator by him, wherein he makes personal posts he terms as "articles" and presents them as factual history. The Harmony, Florida entry would be far more credible without GeorgeSchiro's editorial comments appearing there.Logiharmonyone (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I also appreciate your attention to this SPhilbrick (please let me know if Stephen is OK or if you would prefer Mr. Philbrick or just SPhilbrick). This must certainly be one of your least pleasant activities on Wikipedia. I am very sorry about that. "Logiharmonyone" claims that this is "not as important" to him, yet here he is. Go figure!


 * "Logiharmonyone" refers to my edits as "contrary to Wikipedia policies", yet he fails to include his own edits and the edits of other developer agents in his assessment. Please bear in mind that the Harmony page was originally setup by developer agents (I can't prove it since they're all anonymous like "Logiharmonyone", but it is obvious since the page was clearly setup years ago as marketing spam and subsequently maintained to parrot the developer's own website, as you yourself noted some time ago SPhilbrick). So from the perspective of "Logiharmonyone", it's OK for the Harmony developer to provide 82% of the content, no questions asked. Yet a Harmony resident has no right to offer a contrasting point-of-view? If I am not a neutral party, then neither is the developer or any of its agents. And when "Logiharmonyone" refers to "legal issues" there are none. The only issue is that the developer got very upset with me after I exposed their deception and they basically decided "You can't play with our ball or anywhere on our court anymore." There was no hearing. No judge. No jury. There was only the summary judgement of the offended party. All of this is detailed in the The Empire Strikes Back article.


 * And yes, The Empire Strikes Back is indeed an article (a series actually), even if "Logiharmonyone" likes to demean it as something else. Although that article was only published in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup, several other articles (ie. independent editorials) and letters to the editor that were initially published in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup also appeared in print in the local Osceola Gazette newspaper. I was honored as a guest reporter to offer my opinions in the Osceola Gazette for these editorials:

The 'best' for our children? Students in pursuit of honor What kind of people?


 * "Logiharmonyone" writes "I'm told ... his harassment of a college intern regarding previous edits to the Harmony, Florida Wikipedia entry." Told by whom? The developer? The same people who used an innocent young intern in their cowardly and devious attempt to expunge verifiable history from Wikipedia? The "harassment" that "Logiharmonyone" refers to was two phone calls and two emails in my capacity as a citizen reporter to find out what really happened. The intern denied any involvement in the Wikipedia edits. In fact, she claimed to have never edited Wikipedia. She was very friendly and cooperative until she was talked to by the developer (her former employer). Most of this is detailed in the Developer Dirty Tricks - CONFIRMED article.


 * Finally, my citations do indeed refer to the Harmony, FL Commons website and its related HarmonyFL Newsgroup. But by the same token, most of the developer's edits refer to websites that they either own outright or to websites owned by their paid vendors. At this point the HarmonyFL Newsgroup is equivalent to an online independent newspaper in Harmony and I am its editor. You will see that there are many other contributors, not just me. And as I offered previously SPhilbrick, if there are any references or support materials that you need, please let me know and I will produce them. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple comments before I take a hard look at the article:


 * I don't want to hear again that Logiharmonyone is posting anonymously. We allow that, even encourage that.


 * That said, we don't allow user names that are clearly associated with an organization if the editor is editor an article about that organization. Logiharmonyone is potentially a problem, but not an issue I wish to address at this time.


 * I suspect the notability of this article is borderline, and might not survive a close review.


 * It is not unusual that articles such as this are largely edited by individuals with vested interests. That is not desired, but a fact of life. When the resulting article provide useful information, and doesn't go overboard, it isn't a life and death situation, but if the article becomes contentious, its very existence may be reviewed, if there is little hop of truly independent editors.


 * My concerns about COI editing are not limited to Logiharmonyone, that concern also applies to GeorgeSchiro.


 * A google news group is not a great source. For benign points, not worth fighting about, but if used to support contentious points, we may require better references, either as supplement or replacement, and failing that, may decide the best course is to remove the material.


 * In my current mood, my desired action would be to blow it all up and start over, including the possibly that no article should exist. However, I don't want to act on that at the moment, so will cool off before taking next steps.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, I am completely on-board with your above stated points. I should say that I have never had a professional relationship with Harmony Development Company and my name incorporates "Harmony" only because I live there. I choose to remain anonymous because GeorgeSchiro has a documented history of harassing and bullying individuals who do not agree with him. Having said that, I only made edits to this article because GeorgeSchiro's edits reflect his opinions and his opinions alone, which cannot be verified by a legitimate source not created by him. My neighbors and I feel his edits unduly disparage our community. I am 100% fine with my edits being removed and think the article would be on solid footing with the removal of GeorgeSchiro's as well. GeorgeSchiro's edits aside, the rest of the article, in my opinion, references things that are concrete and easily verifiable. I apologize for the undue amount of time you've had to spend on this small article. My neighbors and I are just trying to do the right thing for our community. Logiharmonyone (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * SPhilbrick, I don't really understand the encouragement of anonymity among editors of Wikipedia unless of course we are talking about citizens of a totalitarian government. It has been my experience that anonymity fosters falsehoods. Similar to how George Schiro is my real name, it is my understanding that SPhilbrick is your real name also, and in my eyes that gives you much more credibility than other Wikipedia editors, IMHO. That said, we can agree to disagree on that point SPhilbrick.


 * Regarding "harassing and bullying", that is the developer's view of anyone who asks too many questions in public. Transparency and accountability is anathema to them. They are exactly like politicians who feel harassed and bullied by news reporters. Unlike many others in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup who do not fear having their identities known, "Logiharmonyone" simply wants to hide the fact that he is really working for the developer.


 * When you have the opportunity, please read Finding Harmony History. It summarizes what this is really all about.


 * "Logiharmonyone" says he has "never had a professional relationship with Harmony Development Company" yet we all know he has. His views are the developer's views. And the developer would like nothing better than to have the Wikipedia page about Harmony expunged since doing so will also expunge the links to any independent views about Harmony. That is their goal. That way prospective home buyers will not find any independent views about Harmony and how the developer really operates here.


 * If you decide to remove the Harmony page, that will be a very sad day for press freedom here, IMHO. Please don't do it SPhilbrick.


 * Here is what was in place since 2008 prior to anyone else's edits:

In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by    Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others promised by the original developer have either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the part of the new developers have created much controversy and consternation on the part of long standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by    Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been documented in detail by a residents website with an    open newsgroup.[4]


 * As you can see, it is very matter-of-fact and even-handed and every word is absolutely true (provably so). In fact, that paragraph accurately represents the history of Harmony in 2005. This Orlando Sentinel article was published at about the same time as the above paragraph. As you can see, contrary to what "Logiharmonyone" has been telling you, these are facts, not just my opinions.


 * As you can also see, there is none of the inflammatory rhetoric in the above paragraph that is common to the "Logiharmonyone" edits (and his commentary here).


 * The above paragraph stood without complaint for 2 years. Why? Because the Harmony page on Wikipedia did not rise to the first page of Google search results until 2010. Only after appearing on the first page of Google search results did this matter become an issue for developer agents like "Logiharmonyone". Another Wikipedia admin ruled in 2010 that changes to the above paragraph were unjustified, changes almost exactly like what "Logiharmonyone" posted.


 * Please tell me SPhilbrick. What exactly do I need to do for the above paragraph to be maintained in its current state to the satisfaction of Wikipedia moderators? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking narrowly, there's no sure way to keep a paragraph in a particular form, as Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, I assume you meant, "How than these facts remain in the article?" That requires support from a reliable source. I haven't yet read the Sentinel source, but that is a better source. @Logiharmonyone, my ruminations weren't about removing your edits, but removing the whole article. @George, I don't have the authority to remove the article. No individual Wikipedian has that authority. What I am wondering is whether it should be proposed for deletion, where a number of editors reach a consensus. I don't know what the outcome would be. My preference is to find a way to write an unbiased article, but that is looking very challenging.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)