User talk:Thekohser/Archive 4

Thekohser_XIV
Is this one yours? 03:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad link. Oversighted?  Or, is this a mildly funny joke? -- Thekohser 04:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Thekohser XIV link works for me. It was not a joke, but if it was a joke, it would certainly not be considered even mildly funny even if you had the worst ever case of the giggles.  05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.255.75 (talk)
 * Okay, it's working for me now. Amazing how the mind fails with middle age.  I had forgotten about that one, but at least now firmly recall my "dispute" over the sovereignty of the British Virgin Islands.  It shall be added to my list (which is probably only about 40% complete yet). -- Thekohser 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone thinks I'm unblocked
Somebody thinks that I am unblocked (according to their edit summary), and they have altered my User page. I remain blocked, though, so could someone please restore my User page to the "ugly" version? Or, unblock me. -- Thekohser 01:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget...
...; I have a special fondness for that one.

(Also, a premature welcome back. I hope everything works out well.)


 * Oops. I must have put my 2008 WMF Board of Trustees candidacy out of my mind!  Thanks.  I've added it. -- Thekohser 11:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I love that username! Viridae Talk 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a tribute, of course, to a Bugs Bunny classic from 1949, Rabbit Hood, where merely by donning a velvet robe and scepter, Bugs is able to not only fool the Sheriff of Nottingham that the rabbit is the king, but bash the mean and intolerant sheriff over the head several times with aforementioned scepter (or, is it a mace?). Hilarious. -- Thekohser 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
Its been a long time, but I think you are experienced enough I don't need to slap here.  MBisanz  talk 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Did you get banned from Yahoo! Answers?

BTW I've joined Wikipedia now, lemme see what I can do here.. Anon158 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You said in December one can earn money here, so yeah?

Forgiveness is useful
Perhaps at some point people will be able to be paid to create articles in their user space that can be looked at by others and added to the encyclopedia in whole or in part according to non-paid editors' editorial judgements. Like I suggested to you when you first showed up at wikipedia. Changing policy at Wikipedia is like changing the direction of an oil tanker at sea. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more like changing the direction of an oil tanker in the middle of a wheat field. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * *de-lurk* - hey, welcome back, Greg!! ^_^ - (your friend) A l is o n  ❤ 23:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh gawd, you are back !!..so its official now..Jimbo has totally lost it ..and yeah Welcome Back !! [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]]...--Warpath (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeking your input
Hi Greg, and welcome back. The decision regarding your return has caused a stir (as you've probably noticed) and there's a discussion at the banning policy talk page. Let's do our best to come together and make lemonade from these lemons. Have posted a suggestion that might make the return process saner and less stressful for everyone. As a recently returned user, your input would probably carry insights that I can only guess at. Does this sound fair? Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy. Durova Charge! 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just remember to make a spelling correction to two pokemon articles before you make one comment or you risk the dreaded ban hammer. :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * an offer for you to email me your password, and allow me to complete a few hundred 'huggle' type edits would, of course, be wholly inappropriate, and likely to result in the re-activation of your ban. I'll add a pleasant 'g'day' to the chorus of welcome backs though :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch the advocacy, please.
Hello.

Please refrain from the commentary in edit summaries. Things like this are unacceptable (and hopelessly misleading at best, unless you mean that an article whose entire contents is "poop" is an "awesome article"?). &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Greg on that one. It's frankly embarrassing if it was really the case that we didn't have an article on Job sharing but managed to spare 8kb for Color Climax Corporation. – iride  scent  18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My point isn't that the article wasn't needed or useful (it is), but that the comment makes it appear that this article was created despite having been deleted four times (and, seemingly, facing opposition). "Awesome article that has been deleted four times before" it was not; and naming one of deleting admins was out of place. That kind of commentary is not what the edit summaries are for, especially when outright misleading or false.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Coren, you are right about what is optimum. But we are all imperfect. Give people space to be less than perfect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I felt that my article was, indeed, "awesome". I also found it interesting that previous attempts to craft any article on the important subject matter were deleted -- not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times.  Without the admin bit, I did not have access to the deleted articles, so my reference to "awesomeness" could only reasonably be associated with the content of my own article.  I mentioned "Wizardman" simply because I thought it was kind of cool that the first article I wrote upon my return had once been deleted by a very famous admin (after all, Wizardman is on the Arbitration Committee and he was mentioned by Stephen Colbert on national television)!  Clearly, I was exuberant on my very first addition back to the compendium of knowledge here, and my edit summary got a bit carried away.  Apologies for that.  I hope that the edit summary doesn't cloud the legacy of the article itself. -- Thekohser 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, the deleted versions were:
 * Spam for a recruitment agency;
 * A list of "Simple but basic steps to reach successfully to your career job!";
 * "Poop" vandalism;
 * A redirect to Employment.
 * We're not talking about stifling the next Milton in his cradle with these deletions. – iride  scent  20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Any idea why not one of the deleting admins took it upon themselves to craft even a stubby embryo of an authentic article about job sharing? I mean, even a quick Google search would suggest hundreds of thousands of hits on the phrase, thirty times more frequency than a similar search for the word "Mzoli's", which survived a noteworthy deletion attempt.  Also, "job sharing" was listed as a requested article since November 21, 2006.  Certainly, it must be easier to craft a stubby stub than to get an admin to look at and delete inappropriate content on four separate occasions, is it not? -- Thekohser 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Harder than it sounds, as it's quite a nebulous concept which means different things in different countries, so shouldn't be a ten-minute "job sharing means sharing a job" definition. In an ideal world, yes, someone would create a stub – but when you're trawling through a mess like this for the third time that day, it's impossible to stop and rewrite everything. As you may have heard mentioned once or twice, when it comes to blatant advertising, standard practice is to delete it if there's nothing salvageable. – iride  scent  21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! I never thought about how frequently and how much time admins have to spend deleting articles that don't belong in an encyclopedia.  I wonder if something like "flagged revisions" would free up more time for admins to help writing requested articles and improving existing articles, rather than slogging through a pile of non-vetted garbage needing deletion?  Hmm... It almost seems like there's a heaping load of non-encyclopedia-building work for admins to do, almost by design.  That's curious... -- Thekohser 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thekohser, I like your sense of humor. Please note that you, me, Jimbo and others all support "flagged revisions". Think of it like the effort to create a decent health care system in America. There is no dictator to make it all happen. The process is by design made hard. This year has seen a successful conclusion to the years old effort to improve the legal copyright status of Wikimedia material. I fully believe it will also see flagged revisions made available in the English language Wikipedia. These things take time. Your humor might be helpful in attaining that. I don't know. I do know that your intelligence will be helpful, even if I disagree with you on your assessment of how helpful Jimbo is. We need more leadership, not less, and your help in providing leadership will be useful. Neither you nor Jimbo has been flawless in past exercises in leadership. I, on the other hand ...... WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me guess... FlaWASless? -- Thekohser 01:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

List of accounts
Greg, as I understand it you were attempting to list all your accounts as part of your deal to get back in good standing. FYI, you seem to have missed one User:Plausible argument. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that one. -- Thekohser 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like the greatest idea to use my reminder as an apparent attempt to take a swipe at Jayjg. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How is providing a modestly interesting bit of factual meta-data "taking a swipe"? -- Thekohser 01:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding that one JoshuaZ. Where is this swipe? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To save Greg using up one of his precious 2:1 quota answering, I think JoshuaZ means An account blocked by Jayjg, weeks before his disappearance from Wikipedia in the edit summary. If that's a "swipe", I'm a turnip; it looks to me like a straightforward "Jayjg blocked it but then retired so won't be able to answer questions as to why it was blocked". Not everything is a personal attack. – iride  scent  22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (adding) Actually John, while you're here can you wearing your Arbcom hat clarify whether Greg replying to questions counts towards his quota? It seems pointless for all concerned if he's not permitted to answer questions because he hasn't made two mainspace edits that day, as well as potentially annoying people ("I asked him this question, but he just carried on making mainspace edits and didn't answer!"). – iride  scent  23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to have replies on his own talk page omitted from the counts, but amendments need to be obtained via the amendment page. I think it would be more successful to request the amendment after a month of the current arrangement working. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to en.wikipedia
Dear Thekohser, welcome back to the English-language Wikipedia. I expect you to contribute positively to the English-language Wikipedia. Good luck! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides the point
I didn't realize it was incorrect; I speak it that way. Sometimes people point out my folksy expressions or my inability to correctly pronounce words from romance languages. I usually explain that I didn't go to a prestigious college. Cool Hand Luke 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I found a poll on the Internet that put "beside" as preferred by about 55% of respondents, and "besides" by about 45%, which horrified me in the way that "irregardless" does. Meanwhile, I've always been fascinated by this study, so I'm of course intrigued to learn if this "besides the point" thing is regional in some way.  Or, "folksy".  I'm going to copy this and continue discussion "over there", because I'm not sure if my commenting here takes away from my 2:1 provisional restriction on non-Article-space editing. -- Thekohser 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. I didn't mean to distract you. No reply here necessary. Cool Hand Luke 17:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

disclosure of undetected paid content
In regards to your statement at the paid-editing RFC, I am wondering whether you are willing to disclose your paid content to someone who can then speak about the appropriateness of your edits to those articles. A rather simplistic deduction is that you don't disclose your paid content because the community may not agree with your assessment regarding appropriateness, but of course there are business contracts/confidentiality and often inexplicable Wikipedian behaviour to take into account, so I don't blame you for keeping a tight lip about them.

To be honest, I am not confident that you have supplied a complete list of socks, as I suspect that some of the paid content was done by socks or meat-puppets which you have not disclosed, for the same reasons you don't want to openly mention the undetected paid content.

To maintain confidentiality, the reviewer would need to be bound to not edit any of the articles, and recuse from anything to do with the undisclosed socks. It would probably be better to select someone who is predominately a content editor, such as a FA reviewer, so that the community trusts their word on the appropriateness of your paid content.

Also, could you or others provide a list of any detected or disclosed paid content? This would give the peanut gallery some examples to inspect, so that we can make inferences about the undisclosed paid content. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Revealing any "meat-puppets" (as you call them; I prefer the term "unpaid editors in good standing") was initially requested by you one of your colleagues via e-mail, but I responded clearly that I "can't even begin to inform the ArbCom about the identities of these individuals". The terms of the ArbCom unblock issued on this page likewise did not include any mention of meat-puppets.


 * Of course, the reason I choose not to disclose my paid editing is the "often inexplicable Wikipedian behaviour" that you speak of. The fiasco surrounding the article Arch Coal once and forever decided that for me.  Jimmy Wales deleted this, called it "PR puffery" and "corporate spam", blocked me, then savaged my User page.


 * I've given you Arch Coal and National Fuel Gas, there is also Zale Corporation and, more recently, Job sharing. While not paid content, these articles owe their provenance to approximately the same levels of quality and research that I put into my paid content.  Why don't you have a formal review and discussion of these four articles before we consider any further disclosures?  A couple of my known "discovered" paid content articles were at the very, very beginning of my paid editing career.  They don't reflect the talent and effort I later achieved.  They were compiled for friends, and no payment actually transacted, because the work was contested and decimated relatively quickly and, perhaps, it was sub-standard.  These included Norman Technologies and The Family & Workplace Connection (deleted as "corporate spam" by Jimmy Wales).  I'd especially like a public review of that latter one.  Was it "spam"?  Was it worthy of deletion?


 * I've just looked at six surviving past articles that I authored from scratch in exchange for payment. One recently received a "POV" template -- I believe because the Wikipedian who added it felt that the article was being too critical of the subject company!  And another has an "orphan" template, even though two other Wikipedia main space articles link to it.  Could we perhaps compare six randomly-selected original articles about businesses and living professionals that were authored by the same editor, but then not ever "improved" later by that editor (to simulate my being banned from English Wikipedia), and determine how many (if any) of them receive similar "warning" templates?


 * In the meantime, I will be considering if there are any trusted admins who could be held to a confidential review of my paid editing work. Is there a list of Featured Article reviewers somewhere? -- Thekohser 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to go down this route but don't trust Arbcom, you can mail me in private (you have my email address). I'm a reasonably regular FA reviewer and author of 9 FAs, and AFAIK aside from a single reversion on Ikea I've never had any mainspace dealings with you, and unless any of your articles are on female pioneers of the Old West, obscure 70s New York bands or 19th century English engineering, there's not going to be any COI issue. I presume most of Arbcom know me enough to trust that I will pull you up if there's anything truly inappropriate, and you know well enough that I won't cause you hassle unless there's a good reason. If you want someone else who's familiar with the FA guidelines etc, and definitely not an arbcom stooge but still trusted by them, you could try Malleus Fatuorum or LaraLove/Jennavecia, both of whom I assume you know from WR. There's a list of FA writers at WP:WBFAN; while not a list of reviewers, there's enough crossover that you can assume anyone on the list will be familiar with WP policies. – iride  scent  00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to look over the content in question and speak to it's validity as well, Greg, and in particular adherence to my personal Big Three, N/NPOV/BLP. rootology ( C )( T ) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As with the above, and as Iridescent recommended, I would also be willing to review Greg's work. I've done hundreds of GA reviews. written a few of them and also have featured content. My current focus, as most are aware, is BLP issues, but I believe the community could trust me to give a fair assessment of purchased content as well. لenna  vecia  03:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How would we go about a public review of the disclosed articles I've mentioned above? Could some nice admin restore the Family & Workplace article to a subpage in my User space?  I guess a series of open, mini-RfC's on the Talk pages of the articles would work?  Let's face it... if that content is found to be horrid, we can all assume the undisclosed paid content is equally horrid, at best, and there would be no incentive for me to disclose.  If the disclosed examples are found to be average or better, then I may have some incentive to further prove myself via additional disclosure. --Thekohser 20:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Restored, complete with history, at User:Thekohser/The Family & Workplace Connection. – iride  scent  20:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If Thekohser has revealed all of his sock puppets then the articles should be easy to find. It's a relatively trivial, though tedious, matter to see what articles the accounts have created.   Will Beback    talk    23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, you don't seem to understand the process. While I've authored a good deal of GFDL content in exchange for payment, the vast majority of it was published on Wikipedia by other, non-paid editors in good standing.  That was the "Jimbo Concordat".  See the history of the articles Arch Coal or National Fuel Gas for non-paid examples, which approximate how the paid articles were likewise published by unpaid contributors. -- Thekohser 00:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. So are you saying that the new articles added to Wikipedia which you wrote came from publicly accessible pages on your own website? Regarding your examples, both articles appropriately list the source in the edit summaries. If text has been copied from someplace else it should be attributed, even if the material is public domain. Aside from anything else, it's a plagiarism issue. But it's also an issue of GFDL compliance. MyWikiBiz content apparently is GFDL, meaning that a link back to the author list must be included. Could you go over the list of articles which form MyWikiBiz and make sure that the source is linked somewhere, either in an edit summary, the talk page, or the article itself?   Will Beback    talk    00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, thanks. If you want to worry about GFDL compliance, tell me what you're doing about the disgraceful violation of the GFDL on January 2, 2008. Otherwise, I'm not concerned about a violation of GFDL compliance on content that I created, which was copied and re-published elsewhere by someone I trusted had the content's best interest at heart. Besides, I took down the old "incubator" pages of MyWikiBiz, long ago, before they were overwritten by the Centiare.com directory pages.  I couldn't reproduce them now, even if I wanted to. -- Thekohser 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Plagiarized material that violates copyright licenses are in appropriate and violate project policies and guidelines. If anyone is adding such material they are disrupting the project. I had thought you were saying you were putting the interests of Wikipedia first. In this matter you appear to be putting your commercial interest ahead of Wikipedia's, presumably out of fear that the improperly copied material will be deleted.   Will Beback    talk    03:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, Will. Is this your response to what happened on January 2, 2008?  The evidence was very clear as to the admin who was violating copyright licenses and project policies and guidelines against plagiarism, as well as (most egregiously) cover-up of the affront.  As for my fear, my only fear is that my properly copied material will be improperly deleted. -- Thekohser 03:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what happened on January 2. However any material that has been copied here in violation of GFDL was not copied properly and should be deleted wherever found. Wikipedia maintains high standards when it comes to re-using the intellectual property. If you are concerned about it being deleted then the best thing would be to make sure that the GFDL has been followed and that the authors of the material are credited.   Will Beback    talk    03:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are either unwilling or incapable of figuring out what happened on January 2, 2008 (which I conveniently linked for you, above), then I'm not sure why I'm even attempting to engage you in conversation. As the author of the paid content, if I am satisfied with how the letter of its licensing was or was not followed, that is the end of the dispute.  Neither Wikipedia nor Will Beback own the content, nor do you hold sway over whether the attribution needs of the author have been satisfied or not.  The author determines this, and the author is satisfied with how the content was published in Wikipedia.  The community also seems satisfied, since none of the articles that were paid for were deleted, and deletion would be the ultimate mark of dissatisfaction.  Now, seriously, I have nothing further to discuss with you, unless you need assistance in figuring out what happened on January 2, 2008, which I assure you, made both the original author of the content and several admins in good standing here extremely dissatisfied. If you do not wish to discuss the January 2nd incident, then you are welcome to set off from my Talk page and begin your quest to find the half-dozen or more articles I wrote for payment that were potentially not attributed perfectly according to your interpretation of the GFDL. (Note -- what would you say if the content appeared with the following attribution: "GFDL content copied from another site, SHA-1 hash code: de9f2c7f d27e1b3a fad3e85a 0bd17d9b 100db4b3"?  That might very well satisfy the original author, who wishes to remain anonymous, yes?  It may not satisfy your urge for discovery, but that's not yours to demand of the author, is it?) -- Thekohser 03:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be cryptic. I'm not sure how the Jan 2 Arch Coal log is relevant- I don't see any mention of GFDL or plagiarism issues. I'm no expert on GFDL, and perhaps we should seek one to see what's sufficient to meet its requirements. I doubt that saying "I release all the material I wrote, but I can't tell you that is" would be useful, but maybe I'm wrong. The issue of how to comply with GFDL material copied from websites that have been taken down may need to be settled too.   Will Beback    talk    05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * GFDL or compatible material that was brought in, but the original source changed/vanished has already I believe been settled from the Foundation perspective over on Commons, where it comes up often on flickr.com images. People free them under a CC license, but then change licensing later, or pull down their Flickr account. The material, once released and reused, stays under the original license. Like, if I release a song under CC, post it online, then take it down a year later--if Jay-Z or someone samples it and makes $1,000,000 from my work, I have no recourse, so long as he follows my previous licensing. As long as we stick to the original licensing, we're fine.
 * As for your "own" content, theres nothing to settle, really. For example, I make an image of some sort, and upload it here. I can even say it's a derivative of my own work, or any other 'sticky' thing, and I'm fine, nothing else is needed. That actually came up on Commons with me as well, where I labeled a photograph of a seagull's face as a crop, and someone made a fuss over it, even though it was a crop of my own original photograph that I took and had on my PC--they wanted to see the original. I obliged, but I was under no obligation to do that.
 * Last, for that prior event, I think Greg was trying to point out that for any of us to go after, or imply we'd go after him, for GFDL licensing when he's been ardent on doing that right, is silly. Basically, JzG very inappropriately reposted Arch Coal but without Greg's work on it, hence Jimmy restoring the final 2 revisions later. It was silly, and pointless, and bad faith to not repost Greg's content. Looking back I'm actually boggled it was allowed to go on so long. Even the most banned user of all time, hypothetically, has full claim to GFDL rights, and no one can take that away. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand how that applies to the situation of improperly copied material which has no required link to the author(s). Thekohser apparently knows the names of these articles, which apparently he wrote and caused to be uploaded to Wikipedia without proper attribution. It'd be great if he'd be proactive about fixing the problem rather than making bad faith comments. I'm not sure why he's concerned about the articles being deleted. Wikipedia has a robust system for evaluating which articles should be kept and which deleted, and at least several of his articles have been kept. Presumably he's been paid for the editing so he no longer has any interest in whther the articles stay or go. I just don't see the problem and why he needs to keep his contributions secret and avoid scrutiny.    Will Beback    talk    00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not being proactive about fixing the problem because there's no problem to fix. The problem would arise from a dissatisfied author of original content.  I assure you the author is not dissatisfied.  Ergo, no problem.  What is a problem is how Wikipedia demonstrated to me the manner in which it handles deliberate plagiarism and cover-up by an administrator.  That's a problem about 16 or 17 times larger than the so-called problem you're worked up over, Will.  Your indifference to the larger problem, coupled with your very statement that "he's been paid for the editing so he no longer has any interest in whther (sic) the articles stay or go", show that you reside on an entirely different plane of business ethics than I do. -- Thekohser 04:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't spend much time in the plane of buseinss ethics involved in secretly planting articles in Wikipedia. I'm more concerned about Wikipedia policies and standards then in making sure that someone's bcontract for promotional services is fulfilled. I'm not sure I understand your issue with what happened on Jan 2. You seem to be saying that you're upset because your authorship information was removed, but you also seem to be saying that you insist on having your authorship information left off of countless, unknown other articles you wrote. Do I have that right?   Will Beback    talk    19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you know what they say, "Buseinss is buseinss." You are disparaging me by describing my encyclopedic content creation as "promotional".  It was "informational".  You are misinformed about my business process, because the content placement was not done "secretly".  Multiple non-paid parties knew exactly of the content and its publication.  That you were not privy to this communication doesn't make it "secret", it makes it "private" -- much like the "private" e-mail lists that Wikia hosted in order to facilitate the wiki-stalking of suspicious Wikipedia editors.  That you were not a party to these private communications, Will, does not entitle you to inclusion on them, no matter how badly it makes you feel.  As for the GFDL, I decided that having my rights under the terms of the GFDL temporarily waived was preferable to having my informative, encyclopedic content shit upon by people seeking revenge.  Violations of the terms of the GFDL are the responsibility of the rights-holder to bring restorative action.  If you think otherwise, I invite you to bring a legal class action on behalf of all the readers and editors of Wikipedia, that I have violated their right to hold sway over my personal wishes for attribution of my content.  Neither Wikipedia, nor the Wikimedia Foundation, nor Will Beback hold the authorship rights to the paid articles I created.  Therefore, the only restorative action that will ever happen is if I choose to pursue the non-paid parties who published my works without proper attribution.  I will personally let you know if and when that day comes. -- Thekohser 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Outdent. Will, this is getting confusing. If Greg is the original author of any version of the content at the moment it hit Wikipedia, including the version he posted to Wikipedia, why should he have to attribute it elsewhere? He's the author. If I write an article on my own private website, GFDL posted at the time, and then just copy/paste it here, that's my right. I don't have to say, "Originally posted at xyz," since I'm the originator. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, TheKohser didn't post any of the content to WP, except for the couple of articles he's listed. Other editors did so. Those other editors had the responsibility to maintain the authorship information, per GFDL, and an intellectual responsibility to identify the author to avoid plagiarism. Those articles have all been copied improperly and the only ones who can really fix them are TheKohser, because he knows which articles they are, and the unknown editors who uploaded them for him.   Will Beback    talk    19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * GFDL: 4. MODIFICATIONS,
 * B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
 * In your example Greg would publish the document on the GFDL compliant website and then Greg would copy and paste that same document into Wikipedia. At the point that he adds the document to Wikipedia, he is listing all it's principle authors (the one and only principle author, him) and is GFDL compliant. However, in the MyWikiBiz process that's described Greg creates the document and publishes it on his website and then someone else (a Wikipedia editor) copies it into Wikipedia. At the point that they copy it into Wikipedia they have broken the GFDL because they have not listed either five or all of the principle authors. The question was actually asked at the time ("How will the author attribution and grant of license work?" ) but I can't see where it was answered; it's likely that it's already been considered and answered somewhere though. In any case, if Greg (and all subsequent authors while it was on his site) released the Wikipedia editor that added the article to Wikipedia from the requirements of the GFDL then the point seems to be mute. Ha! (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies, notability is an issue. Most of the mentions I can find quickly are quite trivial, but I havent looked through the results for "The Norman Group"; feel free to send me any in-depth sources via email and I'll be happy to take it to WP:DRV. p.s. Donald R. Smith might be notable. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In hindsight, notability was indeed an issue.  I don't think it was a "slam dunk" for deletion, but it was admittedly a borderline case.  I know I have no interest in re-working toward an encyclopedic inclusion of Norman Tech into Wikipedia.  I'd rather see that every S&P 500 company has an article first. -- Thekohser 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I count only eight redlinks on List of S&P 500 companies; is that list correct, and only 8 articles remaining to be created? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)