User talk:Urs Etan

Recent edits to Frankie Boyle
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! {{{sub|C}}  A S U''' K I T E  T} 21:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

1RR Gerry Adams
Murry1975 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Cynefin article
Assuming your edit is not a hangover from disagreements on Welsh people then you need to respond to the talk page comment in respect of the edit you have restored. Changing scholar to salesmen (when a click on the linked article would have seen the academic record and reading the article would have shown the academic citations) is a personal attack. I've requested admin oversight heret Snowded  TALK 05:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well Dave, it seems to me you where the salesmen of the IBM Cynefin Centre between 2001 and 2005 and sales for Cognitive-Edge since 2005. And yes you also have some academic credentials. That holds for many, including myself :-).Hvgard (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Director Harold and it was a fully funded research body within IBM. All of the basic Cynefin development was within my UK group in IBM, then in the IKM within IBM then the Cynefin Centre.  All of those were IBM funded research programmes.  Its reflected in the citations for the articles produced from that period and the academic awards (that is called evidence by the way).  I look forward to your amendments to Wikipedia articles about other academics who also have commercial companies, a mass change to sales would be an interesting proposition.  Snowded  TALK 08:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Only warning
As someone who's been here since 2013, you should know that neither hoaxing nor original research is appropriate. When you made this edit, you were well aware that the statement "In 2014 doubts were raised regarding the solidity of the approach when the IRC" was not supported by http://www.irc.nl, and you were also well aware that nothing addressing the concept of "Cynefin" was said in the other source: either that, like the first citation, is a hoax, or it requires original research. Neither will be tolerated: I have protected the page to prevent such editing, and if you persist after protection expires, you will be blocked as a means of enforcing our policies. Nyttend (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My concerns about COI on that article have been taken up by an experienced editor active at COIN, and the conflicted editor appears to have acknowledged the potential COI and taken steps to more fully disclose it. I'm content to leave it at that. Urs Etan (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems things have changed a bit. Good COI discussion going on at the Cynefin talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cynefin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvgard (talk • contribs) 08:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Urs Etan - you appear to be aware of the discussions I have had with Dave and Harold with regard to their financial COIs and the very separate, and perhaps more serious, COI caused by their disputes external to Wikipedia.

You seem to have some connection to all that. Please disclose those connections, so we can open a discussion about your conflicts of interest here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no personal or business connection to either of the editors involved, or to their respective companies. I am not at all involved in the field of endeavor they are in - indeed I'm not even sure what it is, exactly. I seem to have been involved in a prior discussion with one of the editors at the Welsh People talk page but I don't recall it being anything other than civil and cooperative and I was happy with the result. It does appear that perhaps the other editor remembers it differently. Otherwise, my involvement here came after reading the discussions on the Cynefin talk page, when it was clear to me that at least one and probably both editors you have named above had significant COIs. You seem to have arrived at the same conclusion, and as the more experienced editor you are certainly better able to move the matter forward. Urs Etan (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Please take care in editing those subjects.  By the way did you formerly edit as User:Etan urs? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Yes, I registered both as Urs Etan and Etan urs when I first came to WP. Both are forms of my real name, and I wanted to "reserve" both based on prior experience at other websites. As I became more familiar with WP policies, I decided to use only this name. Urs Etan (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ok, would you please put notes on the User page of each of those accounts (User:Urs Etan and User:Etan urs) explaining that? Please make it clear you are not using the other one anymore.  This is per the WP:Username policy - one editor, one account.  Thanks for that, and for talking this through.  And please tread lightly at the Dave Snowden article. With all this COI flying around it is not a place to edit casually, even flippantly, as you did today.  Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, big yin. Urs Etan (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * danke. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Anglo Irish
How is there any COI on that article? Talk page guidelines are very clear, they are not for comments on other editors but for discussing the content of the article. If you have ANY grounds for a COI accusation please state them clearly. Making such an accusation without cause is a serious issue and you have already been warned once above for edit waring to support vandalism on one article and also for being 'flippant'. Snowded TALK 03:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As have you Snowded, which detracts somewhat from your moral authority to give such warnings. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Snowded, you have previously accepted voluntary restrictions on your editing to articles where you have a real-world connection to the subject. This surely indicates that you are aware that you have had COI problems in the past, and that you decided to take the concerns of the community on board and address them. This reflects well on you. I would ask you to bring the same spirit of openness to your consideration of whether it was appropriate for you to remove another editor's comments from an article talk page - comments that appeared to be critical of your editing of the article. I hope that, on reflection, you will come to see that your action here could be perceived as an attempt to suppress criticism of your editing. If Gob Lofa's comments are against guidelines, and I'm not sure they are, it would probably be best if you let an uninvolved editor remove them. Urs Etan (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Snowded, had you not attempted to hide critical comments, this situation would not have arisen. I suggest you take Urs Etan's advice. Gob Lofa (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Urs Etan: I've never had a COI issue and have always edited articles in accordance with policy - even those directly concerned with my own work. If you think otherwise find an example and we'll get someone independent to review them. I recently agreed to go along with a new guideline, which is not policy and has been rejected as policy. But even then there was no criticism of my edits - in fact an independent admin gave the other editor involved in that case a final warning. You got one at the same time for reinstating an obvious bit of vandalism as evidenced above.

The point here is a very different one. Criticism of other editors should not be made on the talk page of an article. Gob Lofa had already made those points on his and my talk pages which was the proper place. So deleting them from the article talk page was legitimate and critically nothing what so ever to do with COI. COI does not mean the same thing as criticising another editors, or removing material which has been put in the wrong place. Now you appear to be a relatively inexperienced editor, but you are close to stalking so I suggest you back off unless you are clearly understand policy. Snowded TALK 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you have accepted voluntary restrictions to manage your COI, which would be an odd thing to do if you've never had a COI issue. Also, when throwing around words like "stalking", you might consider that your main contribution to Wikipedia for the past month or so seems to consist of following Gob Lofa around and reverting their edits, in whole or in part. But you are obviously becoming defensive here, so I will back off, in the interests of deescalation. Urs Etan (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not remotely, the COI interest group asked for a new statement for something I have never hidden and I went along with it.  I haven't accepted any restriction, but will continue to edit in accordance with policy. Neither have I ever hidden behind a pseudonym.   Otherwise several editors are having to monitor Gob Lofa as he is inserting controversial edits (removing the word terrorism) disguised in a mass of small edits.  He's already been at ANI twice and has a block history and I suspect both will happen again.   There is a considerable difference between monitoring for vandalism or POI editing and stalking.  Snowded  TALK 03:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A difference you have blurred with considerable success. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)