Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 32

User:Jake Zhang
- Repeated edit-warring on Charles E. Brown Middle School. User has a conflict of interest regarding the school and has been warned several times. See his talk page. Aside from edit-warring to add generally poor content, his sole recent contribution was this.  Enigma msg  15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded. The content he is adding is subpar, and, contrary to his own belief, he is actually adding in bias. Scarian Call me Pat!  16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But Charles E. Brown Middle School is in fact superior to Day Middle School!
 * Seriously, I would suggest another warning and then a block. Drawn Some (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I have engaged in some school rivalry with Day Middle School about a month ago. It is a Newton thing, and I hope you understand. Still, I apologize for that instance, and note that that has never happened after. But this is unrelevent to the situation at hand. In no part of the article have I ever addressed any other middle school directly or indirectly with any bias whatsoever. If you happen to manage to procure any example of Conflict of Interest, post it. Otherwise, I cannot take your claims seriously. If you do, however, I promise to cooperate to my fullest extent to revise it to a state of objectivity. And thank you for the indention tip.--Jake Z. (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree that Jake Z's edits do not constitute a Conflict of Interest. Editing about one's former school, even to Peacock it up, isn't really a COI. (POV violation, possibly, Reliable Source issue, possibly). If the editor worked for the school, or for a PR firm hired by the school (for example), then yes that would be COI, but I don't see being an alumnus as meeting the standard of "close personal or business relationship". That all said, Jake: Please make sure you're familiar with the policies on verifiability of information, as that seems to be the underlying issue. Anything not cited from a reliable source can technically be removed if it is disputed, though the preferred response is to discuss the dispute on the talk page. Arakunem Talk 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Posting things like [that is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia and it shows you have some kind of bias/POV problem here, if not outright COI. [[User:Enigmaman| Enigma ]]msg  23:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of COI, many of Mr. Zhang's edits are inappropriate and he is absolutely aware that they are inappropriate even as he makes them and so he is wasting others' time. If he can't contribute in a positive manner then he should be blocked from continuing in this destructive manner. Drawn Some (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We have not come to a conclusion yet: is the article an extreme example, if at all, of Conflict of Interest? If so, post any proof that it is. If not, we should take this discussion elseplace. This is not the most appropriate place to decide whether or not the article's content is destructive to the welfare of Wikipedia and its users. Yes, the article needs some work. But blocking me, the article, or deleting it outright will not aid the process. --Jake Z. (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Talk page for the article would be the appropriate place to discuss edits or potential edits, and I note that there is a distinct lack of such discussion there. Do bear in mind though that Enigma and DrawnSome are correct in that: Just because you may not have a COI in this case, some of your edits such as the one Enigma linked are not appropriate for Wikipedia. COI or no, you need to maintain a neutral point of view or your edits may be reverted, and in extreme cases, your editing rights may be blocked. While that edit may have been intended as humorous, I see that it was not received as such by everybody. Furthermore, as some of your other recent edits have been challenged by more than one editor, I suggest discussing them on the Talk page before re-adding them, or entering into a revert war, as that is how we are supposed to do things. Arakunem Talk 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Zhang, regardless of whether or not there is a conflict of interest or the content of the article you have a history of deliberate, non-constructive editing. Yes, such behavior leads to interaction with people who take such matters seriously as you see here but their time would be better spent on other things and I assure you that you could have more fun being mischievous on other websites.


 * If, on the other hand, you want to interact with serious people then I suggest that you find a topic of interest to you (that doesn't involve primary or secondary educational institutions) and make constructive edits. If you are really enjoying the present interaction so much then why don't you cross over to the dark side and become a mediator of such incidents rather than the cause of them? Drawn Some (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been a misunderstanding on my part. My actions were intended only to benefit Wikipedia, and I apologize for regarding your help as hostile. But I still would like to edit Charles E. Brown Middle School with the same goodwill you have shown me in the past few weeks. With the lessons learned of Wikipedia, its users, and myself, I believe the article can be revised to its fullest potential. So I am sorry for my confusion, and the damage it may have caused Wikipedia. --Jake Z. (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks as though Jake has taken the message on board. I feel that this is now resolved. Smartse (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll mark it resolved under the assumption someone (Enigmaman?) has watchlisted the article. Drawn Some (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also notified User:Enigmaman on his talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Banking, Time-based currency and others

 * - has tried to create an article about, and keeps adding material to Time Banking about, two organizations: he seems to be the CEO of one and the Chair of the other. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Warn about COI and then block if behavior continues. Drawn Some (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Zip1010

 * - This user is a single purpose editor that has only been editing 2 articles and the article of its CEO . This user admits working for the companys CEO . The style and content of editing borders of glowing advertorials and shows strong ownership of article. This user has been warned repeated times but still persists down this path. I believe there has been a breach of WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree, but I don't know how this is to be resolved, if at all.Synchronism (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Guidelines suggest that single purpose accounts be warned and then blocked. I don't know why there is so much resistance to this.  Failure to do so compromises the integrity of the Wikipedia project. Drawn Some (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite simply a block is necessary to enforce adherence to WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've notified the editor he seems to be violating WP:COI. He could eventually be blocked if he ignores this issue. Another possibility is that BBY Ltd could be nominated for deletion, since the sources are weak. Maybe give him a day or two to see if he wants to find sources? EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed both articles and did a little research on BBY and it appears to be notable as a small Australian investment banking firm with international business and there are reliable 3rd party sources such as Business Review Weekly. However, the only claim to notability for Glenn Rosewall appears to be as an occasional guest on CNBC Asia so I would put that up for deletion as non-notable/shameless self-promotion or whatever is appropriate.  If the single-purpose account continues self-promotion I still believe it should be blocked. Drawn Some (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * has an extremely similar single purpose editing style. Zip1010 has admitted knowing this user, a previous sockpuppetry investigation was inconclusive. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * this conflict of interest also applies to Ansonrosew who is none other than Anson Rosewall a relative of Glenn Rosewall. Sockpuppet_investigations/Ansonrosew/Archive. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Malin_Tokyo
Smartse (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

- User has a conflict of interest regarding the Swedish Armed Forces and its officer corps. User has received complaints from several other users and has failed to reference conclusions. For this see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swedish_Armed_Forces and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_ranks_of_the_Swedish_armed_forces. Additionally, the user was forced to cease editing the now no longer extant article Rank Insignia of the Swedish Armed Forces after conflict resolution. User has previously been known as User:Randstrom and User:MalinLindquist. Current edit war is a result of the user attempting to add data regarding numbers and duties of officers to the article regarding the Ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces. As this data is a) outside of the scope of the article and b) already posted (and under discussion) at the article on the Swedish Armed Forces I have acted in good faith to stop this. Hans Engstrom (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not been subject to any actions or sanctions by wiki as stated by Hans Engstrom. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hans Engstrom has been accused of edit warring at the admins noticeboard . I can't immediately see what the COI issue is here it seems to be edit warring instead, please clarify. Smartse (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Malin Tokyo is deliberately publishing desinformation with the intention to disparage and discredit the personnel of the Swedish Armed Forces. Several signed and unsigned users (including Hans Engstrom) have tried to convince her to stop by presenting verified facts, but to no avail. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But what is the conflict of interest? Smartse (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The interest of me, Hans and all other users is that the information in this article should be correct and reflect reality. The interest of Malin is a bit unclear, but is probably just to get attention. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that would seem to me as though there is no COI here then. This issue should be discussed at the admins noticeboard: . Smartse (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A block of one of the parties was issued at AN3. From reading Talk:Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces it seems that both Malin Tokyo and Hans Engstrom have knowledge about the Swedish armed forces of the type that an insider might acquire. Even if it turns out that one or both of them served in one of the armies, mere service would not normally be counted as a COI. The problem on the article looks more like WP:OWN and probably WP:OR. The dispute has led to a Talk page full of useful info, but the participants have shown no spirit of compromise up till now. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have listed military ranks and how many people there are in each rank as reported by the Swedish Armed Forces. Those numbers are found in the annual report (2008) of the Swedish Armed Forces. I inserted references for everyone to verify numbers; however no errors have been reported despite over a month passed. How can this possible be regarded as COI, OR or OWN?  --Malin Lindquist (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not appear there is any consensus to include that material in the article. You have not been able to convince your fellow editors, and in lieu of that you have trying to get your material in by revert-warring. We have WP:Dispute resolution, and you should follow it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the inclusion of the table, only Hans Engstrom objected, no one else commented except for the user Svulfsten who wanted us to inlcude year 2006 as well. The table has been open for discussions and verifications in the forum for a very very long time prior publisment... It was publshed after no errors reported. Hans started to revert the table w/o any comments or discussion after it was published. He started the revert war --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, wouldn't a member of an armed service be an employee and thus covered under WP:COI? Still, I don't see this as a COI issue and agree with Smartse and EdJohnston that COI is not the issue here and EdJohnston has pointed out where this should be resolved. Drawn Some (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the dispute is rather WP:OWN than WP:COI, but Wikipedias dispute resolution policies have so many options that it is hard to grasp. I believe that all other participants of the discussion except Malin have reached concensus in the disputed matters. I also believe that the block of Hans Engstrom is unjustified and should be lifted. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The 12 hour block is fairly lenient considering the three revert rule WP:3R was violated. It's a good  idea not to get in an edit war and to take a break or seek intervention well before 3R is an issue. Drawn Some (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors who hold Swedish military ranks (officers) are subject to COIN when describing their own ranks (status). Since the prestige of rank (status) is heavily correlated with the number of persons in the rank and the distribution of personnel vs ranks; the deletion of such information is a clear COI.
 * Most of the participants in the discussion forum belong to the Swedish Armed Forces. Hans Engstrom is a Swedish army officer and 83.227.130.26 a Home Defense officer. Both are therefore subject to COI. Hans has repeatedly removed fully sourced information (annual reports from the Swedish military) that describes the distribution of personnel per rank including quantities.  Their sole interests are to rise the prestige of their rank as high as possible which necessities them to remove fully sourced facts.
 * This is a matter of the removal of top grade information such as financial statements, annual reports, and personal figures to advance prestige or status among a group of individuals -- a clear COI.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another lie. I am a private (private first class to be picky) and have never claimed to be something else. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (undent) Several people have expressed doubt that this qualifies as a COI. From a distance, it looks like two stubborn people who've been continuing a dispute for a very long time. It seems that you as well as Hans have had had military experience in that part of the world. Admins are unlikely to let the reverting go on indefinitely, so you should consider how to reach a compromise. If you are willing to open up an WP:RFC and get it properly advertised it would help to show your good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't just about two people. Malin is the only one who supports her theories, which include assertions such as "A Swedish Colonel is a non-commissioned officer". All other editors on the talk page(more than six) want to remove her made-up translations and misleading information which are not fully sourced at all.--Stulfsten (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Full sources have been available for a long time. Svulfsten first refused to read them, but after he finally did the only part that he wanted to be altered was conscript figures for 2006. The report splits officers into Comissioned Officers and Officers and that is what has been reported by the Swedish Armed Forces. Some in the formum insisted on including almost all military personnel (includig themselves) as Comissioned Officers despite of the report stating differently. That is a fraud!--Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the table, but I have not comented on the contents of it because I have not been able to verify your numbers. Anyhow, the only reason for you to publish the statistics is for you to misuse them to support your incorrect claims. Again: Comission is not the same thing as officersfullmakt. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (response to Malin)Not true at all. The report is in Swedish and your own made-up translations are disputed by all. If you read my very first post on the talk page, you can see that I from the start disagreed with your translations and still do. Everyone else also disagrees, because your translations cannot be found anywhere else but on the wikipedia pages you have edited.--Stulfsten (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The English tranlsation of Fullmakts Officerare is Comissioned Officer. Stuflsten translates a Swedish military rank Överste to Colonel, but does not explain that the role of some with the rank Öveste today equals senior NCOs or admins. due the replacement of all professional NCO ranks with traditional officer ranks to form one single personnel corps where all are officers (NBO 1983). To make almost all military personnel Comissioned Officers is utopic even if it suits most of those in the discussion forum and makes my own rank appear fantastic. Fabricating statements from an annual report is very serious. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I will remind everyone that this is the noticeboard for dealing with conflicts of interest. From reading the discussion here, you should try mediation or dispute resolution or a request for comments because conflict of interest does not appear to be the primary issue. Other matters are not going to be resolved here.

I read the article on the Swedish Armed Forces and it is an obvious battleground on certain issues while the overall article is not very useful to someone looking for information about the Swedish military in an encyclopedia. There are inappropriate statements such as "ignore this" not on the talk page but in the article itself. There is a good deal of opinion and criticism not based on facts but on opinions derived from a thesis or dissertation. There are obvious violations of Wikipedia guidelines in letter and spirit and the result is a substandard article to everyone's detriment. There are precedents for dealing with such issues as sources that are not in English. It is possible to get neutral parties to translate them. Wikipedia articles are to include only verifiable information. There is nothing new in this particular quarrel and there are established means of resolving it.

I will say that is simply not credible to me that there is any confusion at all in the Swedish military over the classification or description of ranks or of the numbers of people serving in each rank or whether military personnel of a particular rank hold a commission or warrant or neither.

It is also disturbing to me that military officers would publicly display their opinions on these topics in such an acrimonious manner. I would urge all of you to seek of consensus through the methods discussed above. Please remember that your actions here are public even if your identity is anonymous. -Drawn Some (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral translations are what we need here. Also, persons with a military background not affiliated with the Swedish Armed Forces. The criticism part appears as opinions from researchers and their words are very strong. We need more resources to expand this section to include more facts from their research; which is one of the very few major investigations about the Swedish Armed Forces outside the organization. I have asked for a better translation than what is currently there, but so far there seems to be a lack of resources for doing so. The recent major disagreement is the inclusion of Swedish Armed Forces in the article Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces. The information has been disputed as lies and removed several times. However, most recently it has been verified by User:Magnus242. He has verified all the references and improved it further and I have agreed, it looks better. He has removed information (troops that Sweden may mobilize in the future) that I was requested to put in the table just to please Hans Engstrom and some others in the discussion forum.  Now, I have proof that I compromized too much, accommodating various desires,in order to proceed. Despite all those compromises on my side, we didn’t proceed. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A general COI question, is a person who is describing and comparing his/her own rank/status/prestigue/position favorably relatively others subject to COI? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this issue be closed. The original complaint was that Malin Tokyo had a conflict of interest, and nobody seems to be pursuing that. I think neither Malin nor Hans is disqualified from editing due to their previous background and affiliations, but they need to pursue dispute resolution elsewhere, not here. EdJohnston (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The COI exists because of an editor's business or personal relationship with the subject of an article (or subject discussed IN an article) independently of any editing action or particular wording used. Think about a judge who sentences his son to death.  There is still a COI regardless of the effects. Review WP:COI to understand what a COI is.
 * Also, I agree with EdJohnston that the issues here are broader than what is handled on this noticeboard and agree that this should be closed. Drawn Some (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Llamaadam adding promotional material and links
Smartse (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Originally took to UAA as a promotional username since his only edits were a speedily deleted (A7) page about a software program called Llama and adding promotional links concerning said program on Llama (disambiguation). Apparently this isn't blatant enough to be actionable, any thoughts? - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 19:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted and the editor's one edit reversed. The name is not worth worrying about in my opinion, I certainly never would have thought that it referred to software. Just keep an eye out for further attempts at promotion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I easily spot connections like that and thought this one looked troublesome. I'll watchlist his talkpage. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 21:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also moved the UAA report to the holding pen - other patrolling users and sysops can keep an eye open for more spam. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 21:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Vallejo (May 2008 to date)


Additional WP:COI or even WP:SOCK may possibly apply to one or more of:



On 19 May 2008 User:Phi2012 created the Virginia Vallejo article. On that same date, User:Phi2012 made an edit to Pablo Escobar whose edit summary freely disclosed the user's connection to a marketing company which describes itself as "one of the nation's foremost authorities in all divisions of the marketing / media industry". User has consistently reverted almost any changes made to the Vallejo article.

On 14 November 2008 a number of edits and reverts made by User:Phi2012 were questioned on that article's talk page. On 5 December 2008 User:Virginia_Vallejo posted a response, claiming to be the subject herself. Neither user has attempted to further discuss the issues involved but an on-and-off edit war has continued for almost a year (see article history).

My own COI would come from the fact that I am Colombian and have been actively involved in this dispute. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm taking this to WP:SPI - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestionbox 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Phi2012. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 19:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blatant spamming IMO by User:Phi2012 - his 3rd edit makes it pretty clear. He should probably be blocked for that I'd imagine. Likewise user:Virginia_Vallejo has obvious COI issues see her reply (assuming it is her) at Talk:Virginia_Vallejo. I think that the Virginia_Vallejo is all about selling the book. Not sure about sockpuppets but it looks as though that's being looked at. Smartse (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Juancarlos2004, the matter is already being handled by 2 and Smartse but I wanted to point out that just being Colombian and being involved in an editorial dispute does not give you a conflict of interest. You would have to have a personal or business relationship with the subject of the article. Drawn Some (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing things up. I was just trying to be careful. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to bring User:Danieloberstein's most recent edit into question, given the COI and sock-/meat-puppet concerns involved. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See Sockpuppet_investigations/Phi2012/Archive for details of sockpuppeting. Smartse (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Protocol (video game)


Severe conflict of interest with this article, current at Articles for deletion/Beyond Protocol (video game). The first user was indefed for making clear legal threats and even contacting the user via telephone. The second user mentioned also admits to a clear COI in the corresponding MedCab case here. The user contribs from CoreyDavis787 seems to also indicate a direct involvement with this topic. The fourth user is also directly involved with the topic of the article according to the userpage. The IP seems to be involved in marketing/promotion of the game as it seems to be editing Beckett Media and the Beyond Protocol (video game) article. MuZemike 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest also considering adding to consideration, even under the assumption of good faith the tone of the questionning of Talk:Beyond Protocol (video game) appears to indicate a lawyer acting on behalf of the other parties. MLauba (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But no legal threats are being made as of yet. This is still a cause of concern due to the tone. Added with the above users. MuZemike 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? This is completely ridiculous. AureliusBP is the only user here DIRECTLY involved with the game, and he has not even touched the main article, only the talk pages. The rest of us (bar the lone IP address, because I have no idea who that is) are just players of the game. We are no more (and probably much less) involved with the content than any editor at GameSpy, TenTonHammer, or GameSpot, and the last two are quite heavily "funded" by the games they review. The accusations made are just that, accusations, please quote "clear" cases, as I see nothing "clear" about anything you pointed out. If by direct involvement you mean, has played the game, has paid for and made a judgment call on, then I'm done reading Wikipedia. 2nd hand history is worthless, case and point, the dark ages... However, if that little rant didn't have any effect and we are going down this road, Wyatt Riot should be added as well for his involvement in designing a fantasy world, clearly a COI. ZyXHavocXyz (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the pattern of edits from the above users objectively, you have to admit it looks odd. Several new accounts started editing this article (and only this article) at around the same time. SirParadox uploaded some images stating their use was approved by the developer, but with no other supporting info. It's not beyond the realm of good faith of course, that there's an online forum for this game where the Wiki article was mentioned, prompting the fans to come here on that date, but without any insight into that, the accusations of COI from the devoloper, and other concerns of meatpuppetry are to be expected. Arakunem Talk 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of AureliusBP, I'm not convinced of COI. He should refrain from editing the article if the article is not deleted and restrict his edits to the talk page and he should clearly identify his role so that the COI is transparent.
 * The imagery I used I noted as by permission as they were public use fan art.

Beyond COI there are issues of single purpose accounts which lend an air of conflict of interest whether or not there is one. Single purpose accounts can be deleted if they violate guidelines.

I made a note at the AfD to delete until there are reliable sources available. All of the COI and SPA issues and admonitions would apply to any future article as well. Also, an article was speedy deleted four timesa at Beyond Protocol and the name protected. The current article appears to be an attempt to bypass that protection and SirParadox and all other editors should be cautioned against doing that again. Drawn Some (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unaware there were any prior articles related to this game. Do not think me throwing in there (Video Game) was an attempt to bypass this! I was just following the trend I've seen on other game pages.


 * I am very disturbed by the accusations that are being made here. As ZyXHavocXyz stated the only one here directly involved with BP is Aurelius. And if you read through the articles edit history he at no point whatsoever edited the article itself. He made comments ONLY in the discussion page. Everything else was contributed by players of the game, not employees or family or anyone with a conflict of interest. You cannot state that someone who has knowledge of the game has a conflict of interest, that is ridiculous. Look at our IP addresses, we are all from different places around the world. You claim I am directly involved with the topic? My involvement is limited to contributing to the article my knowledge that I have gained through playing the game. Dark Sky Entertainment really has no say whatsoever in the content of the article nor are they in any way influencing the creation. There is no conflict of interest here, only people who are doing everything they can to delete the article any way they can rather than attempt to contribute.CoreyDavis787 (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I spent 20 minutes reviewing the references and looking for other ones before I came to the conclusion above. Read my comment at the AfD discussion.  There are no reliable third party references available at this time to  create a verifiable article and that is required.


 * Also be aware that if you register a username your IP info is only available to administrators and only then in the investigation of probable sockpuppetry. No one knows where you are. Drawn Some (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I should note that I still have yet to chime in on the deletion discussion. I am still not sure. MuZemike 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I was not aware that you could not view IP when it was under a username. However, what you said highlights my point "No on knows where you are.". Yet without any proof, only your opinion, it is stated that myself and other fellow players who are contributing to the article are in fact employees of DSE or have some sort of conflict of interest. There is no basis for this whatsoever. The one and only person who is with DSE, Aurelius, did not in any way shape or form create or edit this article. He did make comments in the discussion page but nothing more. It is said that we are directly involved but this is only true insofar as that we are players of the game. Who but the players or people interested are going to be the ones to create the wiki? Only someone with some knowledge of the subject is going to be able to form any sort of accurate wiki. I fully acknowledge the importance of making sure there is no conflict of interest but in this case I can't help but feel the subject of COI is being seized upon without proof or thought in an attempt hasten the deletion of the article by those unwilling to contribute or judge fairly. CoreyDavis787 (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This board is for discussion and investigation of possible as well as actual COI. I, for one, concluded that COI is not an issue with the article.  There are several other issues at play but only one is important.  Unfortunately, the game does not meet notability requirements at this time.  The article was speedy deleted four times previously and the name blocked from re-creation so now it has been re-created under another name but still does not meet notability requirements.  So any other discussion is useless at this time.  When independent third-party sources are available the article will meet notability and any other issues such as COI can be dealt with if and when they arise. I was a little disappointed myself that references were not available.  I suggest that the present article be moved to a user subpage such as User:CoreyDavis787/Beyond Protocol until the references are available. The subject of articles MUST be notable and the information verifiable or the encyclopedia becomes worthless. If ANY article could be included you wouldn't be trying to get this article included.Drawn Some (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about assuming anyone involved in creating the present article knew about past deletions. Here's the record:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Protocol
 * That would probably be the best title for it and an administrator could make the move at the appropriate time. Right now it is locked because of the four attempts at creating the article and having it deleted mostly for not asserting significance or importance. Drawn Some (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The only person I seriously suspect of COI is AureliusBP. His threat of legal action to Wyatt Riot says as much. -- Raziel  teatime 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think that the others are just fans. Except for the legal threats however AureliusBP has acted correctly as other editors have pointed out in that he has only posted on the talk page. Smartse (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So is everyone agreed that this is not a COI issue and that this section should be closed? Drawn Some (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as there are no more legal threats made to anyone from AureliusBP(or anyone else), and as long as he edits the article in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then COI will not longer be an issue. --- Raziel  teatime 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has already been discussed in a mediation and it survived a deletion proposal with No Consensus, Articles for deletion/Beyond Protocol (video game). Some editors still believe the sources are inadequate and it is likely that Talk discussion will continue. Since the COI issue has been fully worked over in more than one place, I agree that this report should be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to close then. If there are further concerns they should be brought back here or to the appropriate noticeboard. Legal threats especially are a serious matter and there are precedents for dealing with such a situation. Drawn Some (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Deluxe Corporation
- new account, making edits only to Deluxe Corporation. The edits look like standard corporate PR, with links to press releases and the company's own site. A link to a reliable source (Forbes) was removed in favor of a press release. Reverted all edits by, then restored their infobox. Please watch this article. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly a WP:SPAMNAME spamming the article -- reporting to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Username now permablocked. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Anne Milgram

 * Milgram is the A.G. of New Jersey. I've blocked the username as a role account, but... -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I did some editing on this article last night. One of the IPs was NJ DOT. Drawn Some (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Railway Express
Smartse (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * - User states on userpage that they are employed by Virginia Railway Express and are on Wikipedia to "maintain and ensure that all content posted for, about and relating to our company is factual." This seems like a big ol'COI to me, even though the article Virginia Railway Express seems pretty well done. So, I don't want to warn or scare off this individual, so perhaps someone with good bedside manners and more knowledge of the COI policy can broach this subject with the user?--A. Gorilla (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Userpage states "We are employed by the Virginia Railway Express and are here to maintain and ensure that all content posted for, about and relating to our company is factual." The edits made seem ok but this username appears to be a shared account and therefore violates username policy U. I've reported it to WP:UAA. I'll let the user know. Smartse (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Account blocked. I'll explain why. Smartse (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems appropriate. They don't seem to understand Wikipedia.  Drawn Some (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * User has now changed name. The situation may still need to be monitored but since the article was not obviously POV or promotional (commuter train) I'm not going to do so.  The inherent COI still exists though. Drawn Some (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've watchlisted the article. VRE's new user name is . Do we think that this is resolved for the moment? Smartse (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think it is resolved. The COI was only apparent because of the name of the contributor.  Drawn Some (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the COI still exists - JoeTransit is clearly an employee of VRE but he's been made aware of COI issues and I'm watching the page. Smartse (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm a little concerned that corporate usernames are asked to change them.  All that does is allow them to continue editing under a different name making it harder to monitor them.  They must chuckle about how nonsensical it is. Drawn Some (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobby lewandowski

 * -- persistent insertion of this obscure motivational speaker's website into articles like motivational speaker, integrity, and so forth. Created the deleted article used as the header for this subsection, which was a blatant spam for the guy. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- persistent insertion of this obscure motivational speaker's website into articles like motivational speaker, integrity, and so forth. Created the deleted article used as the header for this subsection, which was a blatant spam for the guy. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Persistent spammers should be blocked. Drawn Some (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There appears to have been no activity by these users since the 27th. Drawn Some (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sports Marketing Group and related
It seems to me that 3 (or possibly 2, or 1) editors are engaging in promotion for Sports Marketing Group and a related article. The editor(s) are: The 2 primary articles are: While the articles have sources, it seems clear to me that this is a case of selective sourcing, putting the topics in a clearly positive light, and drawing conclusions that are not clearly drawn by the sources themselves. Discussions with the contributor(s) have resulting in what seems to be denial about the conflict of interest and disbelief that the prose is biased (see Talk:Sports Marketing Group, for one). The latest is the anon removing all tags from the article, indicating that he/she doesn't see a problem with the article. Some additional viewpoints would be appreciated here. Regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty clear cut IMO. All three users have only edited these and other related articles. TonyPew and KrissyPope have both been warned for introducing advertising into other articles including NASCAR. I think it's worth noting that the IP user has edited the articles before removing the tags and claims "we studied this company in class and its all on point". They said they would wait a week before removing tags but did so the next day. The articles are notable but as AbsolutDan has pointed out the articles may not be written from a NPOV. Smartse (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Had another look and googled "Sports Marketing Group" (with quotes) - only 9000 hits, none of which appear to be related to this company. I'm going to add db-inc. Smartse (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like speedy was declined. What do you folks think about an AfD? --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. I took the time to make a bunch of edits to both articles trying to make them work, and I commented every edit I made, only to be accused of bias, sexism and "ripping the article to shreds." Some of the content was added back in later without comment from the editors. I think the editors that AbsolutDan mentions above are probably all the same person (possibly Lavalle himself). Would support delete at this point. Simishag (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Listed: Articles for deletion/Sports Marketing Group‎. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My two cents... while may not be worth much, here are google searches and other searches I did for you guys.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&num=100&q=%22nye+lavalle%22&cf=all http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&newwindow=1&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&q=%22nye%20lavalle%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=poll&as_epq=sports+marketing+group&as_oq=hated+loved&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&num=100&q=poll+hated+OR+loved+%22sports+marketing+group%22&cf=all http://books.google.com/books?um=1&num=100&q=%22sports+marketing+group%22&btnG=Search+Books

I think smart didn't add additional search strings to limit. Also, doing searches of major newspapers turned up a lot. The Bob Ryan story from Boston paper was really funny.

Check factiva and other news sources.

Found a ton of articles if you guys want on their site. They need to redo and update site.

http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDFgallery1.htm http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2785-%2793.pdf http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2793.pdf http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2793-%2794.pdf http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2794-%2796.pdf http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2796-2007.pdf

In reading the articles, it appears to me they were media darlings since while one or two articles made snide comments and remarks, no one challenged their research and the quotes I found on the company were from the CEOs and presidents of major ad agencies at the time like DDBNeedham and DMB&B which had Budweiser, GM and all. You should look at Steve Wilstein's page. He was the AP reporter who busted baseball and McGwire. It seems he had a close working relationship or collaboration with the AP. Few companies get to do joint studies and research with the AP. One area no one has mentioned and should be included in the articles is that they did the largest study of sports gambling as well that won an AP award.

The only negative comments I found were in a copy of the Chronicle of Philanthropy that were not news stories, but comments from people from major charitable organizations that complained that lavalle should not do research into charities and if they are loved and hated since all charities are good ones. (tell that one to opposition of NRA or ACLU)

For my two cents, while the article reads like a press release, its more than likely because of the news content that was sliced and diced to prevent problems with copyrights.

My two cents (losing even more value each day)

66.229.128.203 (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sports marketing group has been deleted through AfD. Smartse (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Smartse, since the primary article was deleted and has not been re-created, do you think this issue is okay to be closed? I did some editing on the Nye Lavelle article the other day to help clean it up. Drawn Some (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User:12.87.175.130
Smartse (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC) A year ago, April 16, 2008, edited the Wikipedia article on Out Magazine. Every edit since then has been to insert links to Out.com into biographies of living persons; including more than 100+ such links over the past couple hours. The edits are usually inserted into inappropriate sections of the articles, and sometimes duplicate information already present in the articles. It appears this editor is more concerned with rapidly mass-inserting links to a website, rather than improving articles. I assume the editor has a "Conflict of Interest" here, but is there a better place to report this behavior? I've reverted most of his edits, but he appears to be still editing as I type this. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * User seems to have stopped now and Xenophrenic has reverted their edits. I've warned them and told them that they have been reported here. I would guess that if it carries on someone should request a block. Smartse (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the IP was trying to note the Out 100, I wrote a note as well. This is probably not the best place for it, not clearly COI, but if it re-occurs an administrator should block. Drawn Some (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this COI?
has been adding external links to various automobiles related articles. The links are to carsguide.news.com.au, which I believe can be considered as reliable source and valid external link. On checking the WHOIS for the IP, I found that it belongs to the company News Limited Inc. which runs the said site. Should this be considered as COI/spam? Leave  Sleaves  04:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's basically just a link-spammer. Drawn Some (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what would you suggest be done about this? Or should this be just left for itself? Leave  Sleaves  10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the links are legit, then it's COI, not link spam, right? Maybe the user should be pointed to the COI guidelines. I would be much happier if the user would register and disclose the COI on his user page rather than hide behind an IP, but I don't think that's enforceable. Rees11 (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Drawn Some has notified the user of the issue. Hopefully the editor will stop now. Leave  Sleaves  16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did, it's basically just a link-spammer. Also I reverted the two insertions that hadn't already been deleted and pasted their information on the talk page because the users at that location may not realize that people know where they are and that may encourage them to register as individuals. If the behavior continues an admin could ban but it's an IP account at a corporation so that's not really "fair" because it blocks other users. In cases of extreme link-spamming edits containing links to carsguide.news.com.au could be rejected by the software.  So yes, there is a COI, but someone going around and inserting links to their website in the external links section is just a link-spammer, it's a much simpler matter, more akin to vandalism than POV pushing.  More info is at WP:LINKSPAM. Drawn Some (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

SPA Promoting self-published book on conspiracy theory


- Name based upon "C. Symons" author of a self-published book (through Amazon's CreateSpace) proposing a Satanic conspiracy allegedly responsible for killing a bunch of people authorities say were accidental drownings. All edits have been to advertise this book, which fails WP:RS quite dramatically. (And jsut read some specifics on latest edits: the edits accuse some random person of being the prime suspect (certainly not what the authorities believe) and cite the book as the source. This accusation against a living person is whole orders of magnitude worse than just spamming. DreamGuy (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the article title to the above header. The problem is with *a specific editor* and not with the article as a whole. After someone removed the paragraph that mentions Symons' book and accuses a specific person of the crime, the article seems neutrally written and has good sources. I've left a warning for Csymons70 that he could be blocked for violating WP:BLP if he makes the article accuse a person of the crime who has not been formally charged by police. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, apparently the promo for the book is kind of deceptive in that he doesn't actually promote a conspiracy theory but argues against it (or at least does in his edits here). Not sure where on earth he was getting the idea that the one guy was a major suspect when he knows he wasn't... probably because some weird sites made the claim, and he wa mentioning it to argue against it? I don't know, the parts he gets into are still not notable or from reliable sources, and he's still working to promote his own book by citing himself as an expert. Despite multiple warnings and multiple people reverting him he is still adding information about himself. DreamGuy (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Csymons70 has been inserting self-promotional material back into the article after it was removed by others, and has had many explanations and warnings, he is blocked 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve Outtrim


User:Yellowkestrel has created most of the content for Steve Outtrim and non independent edits. All the Steve Outtrim references appear to be press-release style reporting rather than independent journalism (except maybe the wired reference?). Does this count as a conflict of interest? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is likely someone with a conflict of interest. It's a new user though.  single purpose accounts can be banned if poor behavior continues after warning.  I put a CoI warning on the user's talk page.  Smartse is taking care of issues as well. Drawn Some (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this one, the COI isn't blatant although the article does seem to have been written by someone who know's Steve Outtrim in my opinion. The references aren't great but I suspect that might be because any relevant information would come from years ago and no longer exists on the net. He certainly seems to be notable if the claims made are correct (which I suspect they are). I've removed a few more questionable points and cleaned it up a little but please feel free to do some more yourself. Smartse (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Liberty Reserve
- article's been subject to a lot of editing in the last 3 days by User:Mrs Jefferson (contribs) (as well as a few different IPs) that have changed what was already a not exactly brilliant article into a blatant advertising spiel. I originally tagged it as a candidate for speedy deletion under CSDG11 before deciding to try and restore it to the latest 'usable' revision. It's now subsequently been returned to substantially the same form as before my reversion by User:LibertyReserve (contribs). I presume you can see my obvious concern. - Chrism would like to hear from you 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have stumbled on a nest of gold bugs/online currency types. Very tenacious.  I reported one username LibertyReserve and added some tags and warnings.  Also will put the article up for deletion.  This may take a lot of attention. Drawn Some (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrib Gas Articles & Shell to Sea

 * Articles_for_deletion/Shell_to_Sea_Fleet
 * Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Devins
 * Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Devins
 * Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Devins
 * Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Devins

Background
This user has a self declared conflict of interest. User:Lapsed Pacifist. He is involved with a campaign against the building of a gas refinery in the West of Ireland, however he has created and aggressively edited a number of articles relating to topics (some really only loosely related) that have some involvement with this campaign.


 * The user has been brought up before at this noticeboard but with no results, see:-.
 * A now retired editor warned him about his editing shortly afterwards:-.

Attempts at dispute resolution
A Medcab was opened on these topics but stalled:-. Since its breakdown this editor has resumed editing aggressively on these topics.

An Rfm has been opened Requests for mediation/Corrib Gas but doesn't seem to be making any signs of getting underway.


 * Note the above mediation never got underway but a new one has since started here: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-6/Corrib_Gas Smartse (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Current situation
I have been attempting to work through issues with the user on these articles to some degree of success. However this has been very slow and now seems to be coming to a head with events here:-.

Disclosure
I originally started editing Wikipedia and the Shell to Sea articles under the username mustycrusty as a joke. When I attempted to take things more seriously I switched to the username greenlightgo. I was unaware of rules relating to sockpuppets and was subsequently blocked. I have rebooted using correct protocol and since then have worked to take things more seriously. G ain  Line  ♠♥ 22:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
This case is clearly complex. Could you provide any specific diffs that demonstrate that COI guidelines have been violated? Thanks. Smartse (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, it is a very complex case and any input is appreciated. The background is that information is trying to be introduced to Integrated Risk Management Services that would potentially portray the subject in a negative light. It is alleged that an assault took place on a protester by employees of this company, any media reports say that it is shell security who are responsible. (IRMS are a contractor employed by shell to supply security)  For this reason I am contesting the info cannot be introduced under WP:V. The information has already been introduced by myself into other related articles eg. Willie Corduff.


 * An administrator who has since retired already warned the user for similar activity last year.


 * Read the thread here:- . A Clear prejudice against some of the parties is displayed. Quote "There's only police force putting old men into hospital in Erris. There's only one security company putting old men into hospital in Glengad. No others are referred to in any reliable sources, and unless Shell jettisons these Neo-Nazis for another crowd, none will be. I don't understand what your problem is. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)""


 * Garda Public Order Unit is an article that concensus was reached upon. This eventually necessitated input from an 3rd editor and an almost rewrite of this article. This was not without difficulty . Again prejudice was displayed: Quote "Young men openly and apparently legally hospitalising old men and brutalising women is unusual enough in northwest County Mayo to warrant a bit of highlighting, I reckon. If POU activities are not to be described on this page, then where do you suggest? I'm fine with losing the adverb. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)"


 * Again Negative info introduced into article on Garda Water unit see revision history :-. Info eventually moved to another article.


 * The editor has created a number of articles that are linked to the Shell to Sea campaign. Shell to Sea Fleet being an example, this is seemingly an article about canoes and tactics employed by S2S.  It should be noted that the article is almost the same size as the article on Stena Line.  Other articles are Corrib gas controversy,Integrated Risk Management Services, Maura Harrington. Mary Devins, Pat O'Donnell, Pobal Chill Chomáin, policing of the Corrib gas protests & Pro Gas Mayo Group. While some the articles are certainly on topics worthy of inclusion and containing a lot of good info others (or parts of others) seem to be designed to promote the Shell to Sea campaign or portray a POV that is negative to those parties that S2S are in some way opposed to. Eg. policing of the Corrib gas protests & Integrated Risk Management Services (the policing articles does have the advantage of removing info with undue weight from Garda related articles). See the RFM for a full list of articles involved in this dispute, if you look at them you will see a similar pattern.  Also the introduction of many images (not all) into these articles are sometimes designed to push a negative POV on those subjects, this is particularly evident in  topics that are only loosely connected to the topic eg. ,, the IRMS article.

Thanks! G ain  Line  ♠♥ 15:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok some of that seems like POV rather than COI to me. I assume you are saying that Lapsed Pacifist is breaching the following COI guideline : "Campaigning: Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest". Is this correct? Smartse (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is correct, some of the POV stuff seems to be coming as a result of the COI and making articles seem like propaganda G  ain  Line  ♠♥ 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also can you please provide the evidence that Lapsed Pacifist is actively involved in Shell to Sea. I've also asked Lapsed Pacifist to disclose this here if he/she can. Smartse (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist has made the declaration on their user page. This declaration was only put up sometime after user User:Falcon9x5 challenged them on their talk page on the basis of questions asked here  by user:alison. I have not challenged LP for further proof of involvement as I was of the belief that it was contravene their right to anonymity. G ain  Line  ♠♥ 15:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Images of S2S related items have been uploaded by LP are under the licence that they are the creator of the work. Most recent can be seen on: and so etc.

G ain  Line  ♠♥ 16:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's convincing evidence. I've looked at the pages and I agree that a lot needs to be done. Lapsed Pacifist has clearly breached COI guidelines on some of these articles. I think the majority of these article could be summed up in one article personally. A lot of the articles just repeat the same (often uncited) information which makes it difficult to find out much about the issue. I've put Shell to Sea Fleet forward for deletion - I think it's pretty obvious that it would only have been created by someone with a COI. I think that policing of the Corrib gas protests should be an AfD too but I'm going to bed! Smartse (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that this is resolved for the moment, a new mediation has started: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-6/Corrib_Gas. The mediator has asked for G  ain  Line , Lapsed Pacifist and Falcon9x5 to not edit these pages and I'm also not going to edit until the mediation is finished. Smartse (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler
Megan McArdle posted on her blog the suggestion that the Chrysler PR department have been editing this article. I confess that I can't follow her logic, and I see no evidence myself, but I thought I'd give a heads up anyway. Bovlb (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of blogs and Twitter and the like making people feel like they have to talk even when they have nothing to say. Drawn Some (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a look too and can't find any evidence so I've mark this as resolved. Smartse (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Fleischman

 * - The user Fleischman recently created a page entitled Saul Fleischman, containing text taken straight out of his user page. Another page he created, You-Na Tech was speedily deleted twice today, and is mentioned in the Sean Fleichman article. Aside from the obvious shared name, it seems like a very clear conflict of interest, perhaps even spamming case to me. TheLetterM (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rival Brand

 * - Dustin Dyer is one of the three partners in this tiny, non-notable business. No edits outside this topic. Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The oddest thing to me is that it claims to be a luxury brand but most of the products are graphic tee shirts. Drawn Some (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete was declined due to supposed notability on google news. I couldn't find anything relevant to this company so have proposed deletion. Smartse (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Where in the article does it "claim notability"? Am I missing something? Jeez this is getting ridiculous. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Smartse (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wind Turbine Syndrome and Nina Pierpont


These articles and editors seem very suspicious to me. I can find little or nothing about this self-referential pair other than two websites that are currently offline. This smells like conflict of interest / astroturf to me. Tspine (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have listed both articles for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no conflict of interest with anything posted. Why the hostile tone, Astroturf? Does this disturb your paradigm? There is nothing posted on these sites that is not true. I have no financial or other connections with Nina Pierpont other than admiring her work and seeing this courageous lady stand up to a narrowminded society that seems so intolerant that they will not look beyond the rhetoric and propoganda. This might be new information to you but it is in no way a basis to stifle the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC) — Grandma Moe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Grandma Moe is one of the creators of these articles. Judging from the comments at the AfD, this is being used to try to fight windmills. Drawn Some (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Myself and Tspine suspect that Grandma Moe is using sockpuppets at the AfD discussions. They have been reported: Sockpuppet_investigations/Grandma_Moe. Smartse (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I was waiting for more sockpuppets before reporting so it would be really spectacular. Drawn Some (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User 208.84.225.10 / Columbia Pictures
Just a heads up that has edited the plot out of a few dozen movies over the past few days, all of which coincidentally happen to be movies distributed or produced by Columbia Pictures. Someone might want to take a look into it. Henryrothschild (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That IP address is owned by Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc, which owns Columbia Pictures. Rees11 (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, the edits in question have been reverted and the IP has been warned. Smartse (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User 208.84.225.10 seems to be at it again. The subject of the article apparently is a producer who has done work for Sony Pictures. (Sorry, I'm new here, should I have made a new section at the end of the COI project page since this is marked "resolved"?) Rees11 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. COI editing for sure but it doesn't seem promotional as it was before. I've warned them however that they should desist. Looking at the history of Laurence Mark I've found another Sony IP editing articles: It would appear as though editing articles they have a COI issue with is not a new thing. Any ideas as to what measures could be taken? Smartse (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This user: SonyPicsEnt was also blocked in March. Smartse (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With this series of edits, removed content from Laurence Mark, in a large edit that also added some new material. He has already been given a final warning for removal of content, based on his taking plot information out of articles. After plenty of time has gone by, he is still making COI edits and has not replied to the COI complaint. I suggest that since he continues to violate the WP:COI guideline it is time for a 24-hour block. Will wait to hear if anyone objects. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI on biography of Frank Lorenzo
One editor (wikilore) keeps removing properly sourced facts relating to this important figure in the 1980's aviation industry. This user removes all potentially negative reference to biography subject while adding unsourced POV comments that portray subject in a flattering light. Please respond on my talk page if more or different details are required. Thank you for your consideration. Mikewelch7 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a COI warning on his talk page. Don't get involved in edit wars.  Use templates to warn about removing sourced material, see WP:UTM for possibilities.  Remain civil.  Single purpose accounts can be blocked if the behavior continues, see WP:SPA.  Drawn Some (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous, I just warned User:Wikilore for vandalism. If this continues I see a block in his/her future. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikilore has been blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, if you look at the edit history, you can see that there was a username Redstoneranger who was just as non-NPOV as Wikilore, and whose account was deactivated around the same time (within 2-3 days) that Wikilore came into existence. Both usernames only interested themselves with Frank Lorenzo or companies under his control.  Obvious sock-puppeting to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.234 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth knowing about . It's not so clear whether he had a COI, and unlike Wikilore, he stayed out of revert wars with regular editors. Since he has not edited since 9 February we don't need to take any action on him. Conceivably could be the same person as Redstoneranger, but he too has not edited since February. (Their common behavior was that neither of them ever seemed to use the Preview button). EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI on Greenstreet Publisher
I encountered Greenstreet Publisher over at AFD. I tagged it for G11, it reads like the back of a software box and is completely unsourced. The author, appears to be a single purpose account - contributions consist of the aforementioned article and adding spam links to desktop publishing articles. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a spam warning in addition to the CoI warning that was there. Drawn Some (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive and its AfD Page
An editor created an article about a research project he is the director of, and all references that exist for the subject are authored by him or seem based on his input. Article has an open AfD and the editor has voted to keep. The editor is: The article and AfD page are: I don't think his actions of creating the article, editing it, removing the PROD template I put on it, and voting on an AfD page for the article are consistant with WP:COI, considering he is in charge of the program the article is about. ~ Pesco So say•we all 11:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive
 * Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive

Yes, Dr. Levinson voted on the AfD, however he disclosed his potential COI at the same time so that a closing Admin (or future commenting editors) can take that into consideration during the AfD process. This action substantially eliminates the COI on the AfD issue. There is no hard and fast rule that I see against voting in an AfD process when you have a potential COI. It just says use extreme caution, which he did by disclosing the COI. This is the same for the PROD. No abuse, as the article is simply sent to AfD, which it has been. In an ideal world he should have posted to the article talk page early in the article development process to disclose the close relationship. But without doing any controversial editing, he caused no harm. In an effort to put some distance between Dr. Levinson and the article, I have added references which (OMG!) refer back to him as the principal investigator. In summary, a conflict of interest exists, but I do not consider that the editor abused this nor did he violate any policy that I see. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented on the AfD (keep) and reviewed sources for the article. My consideration is that Dr. Levinson is that the conflict of interest in the subject did exist. He has an extremely COI:close relationship with the subject (he is the principal investigator for the federally funded effort). However, when he created and edited the article he followed WP:policies by providing a WP:reliable source for WP:Verifiability. There is no self-promotion and the article has maintained a WP:NPOV (the article merely asserts the existence of the archive, no extraordinary claims are made). Based on these facts, I do not see where Dr. Levinson has used his close relationship with the subject to create a COI on a level that any concern need be raised. In fact, his editing actions are specifically allowed by this guideline as long as he follows policy (which he did).


 * AfD result was to keep - do we think that this is resolved? Smartse (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's pretty much in the past now, but it would be nice to know if DavidLevinson's involvement met the COI policy or not, and to state what his continued involvement with Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive and related votes should be. ~ Pesco So say•we all 02:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is a conflict of interest but the policy doesn't FORBID such editing, it highly discourages it.  In a case like this where the article is not obviously promotional and even survives the scrutiny of an AfD there is really nothing more to be done.  The AfD was fairly in-depth, David Levinson commented, and it was decided that the subject is both notable and verifiable.
 * In his defense, he has not tried to hide his identity or push a viewpoint. Had he used "Fastcars84" as his username the issue would not have arisen in the first place and there is perhaps a bit of a Catch-22 there.
 * It would be better if he put additions in the top section here or on the article talk page and let someone else add them. As far as AfDs and the like, they are more discussions than votes, no one counts up to see what the majority is and take that as the winner and everyone is encouraged to contribute to the conversation, even (especially?) someone with a conflict of interest.
 * Sorry it took a couple of days for a response to your question, I for one didn't see it. I think the case is resolved but if there are future problems a new report can be made. Drawn Some (talk)

Whitewashing on Matthew Shirk


It seems that we may have an effort to whitewash this article on a Floridian politician? This contributor has removed large amounts of sourced material without explanation. Asked to both provide sources for the information he was adding and also not to remove unsourced without explanation, he again removed large amounts of information with an edit summary "adding sources". It may be that some balance would be appropriate for the article, but the contributor has again removed the material (restored by ClueBot) without addressing the issue. Additional eyes would be much appreciated; I have a fairly heavy workload today and am leaving town tomorrow for the weekend. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I left a warning about removing sourced material on the user's talk page. He has also done the same to another article. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for investigating.:) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Workplace COI questions
I have a full-time job at the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre a unit of the library at Victoria University of Wellington. One of our core activities is republishing out-of-copyright or abandoned works electronically (to our website, free of charge and not-for-profit). Our collections policy is dictated by a combination of teaching and research demands, as well as funding. Many of the authors of the works we publish have wikipedia pages.


 * Most of the works are out of copyright, so the author is long dead, but there are some projects which are covered by crown copyright or a professional body and we have been given permission. There are also a small number of contemporary projects as well (mainly working with writers and editors on campus).
 * I'm not looking at creating pages for these people / subjects, merely enhancing existing ones, easing problems of notability.
 * I'm looking at doing this manually, rather than using a bot.
 * Searching Wikipedia for "NZETC" reveals 624 hits, most URLs into our collections, mainly to our editions of the official war histories (multi-volume sets for WWI and WWII, under crown copyright but published with permission) and The Cyclopedia of New Zealand (multi-volume encyclopedia from ~1900, out of copyright).

My questions are:
 * 1) Is it a conflict of interest for me to add links from appropriate pages on wikipedia to the full texts of works in our collections? I don't believe it is.
 * 2) Does it matter if I add the links on work time? I can't find any Wikipedia polices on this
 * 3) If I respect Biographies of living persons does it matter if the people are living vs historical figures? I can't see how it does, but the WP:BLP folks will be much faster to revert / jump on issues.

Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion merely, but there are two things to consider here: whether you actually are in conflict (that is, whether you're interested in promoting your library at the cost of upholding Wikipedia's goals) and whether you appear in conflict. I have seen editors come into trouble under the second in circumstances where I felt clearly they were fine on the first. I think your best bet to avoid this is to proceed moderately, prepared to explain why your actions are not in conflict if and when challenged. You may find it useful to put a general statement on your userpage.


 * I am of the opinion that it is not a COI for you to add links to appropriate pages, so long as the pages are appropriate and the links are legitimately likely to interest our readers. Wikipedia is not a collection of links (as per WP:EL, but a library's collection of publications is likely to interest our readers. (I say, without viewing any of the particulars.) As to the second question, Wikipedia does not care if you add the links on work time. We only care if the links are appropriate. There are times when Wikipedia's aims (the free dissemination of knowledge) and an employer's aims are going to coincide. Should this be one of those, and your employer is willing to pay you to improve Wikipedia, then lucky you. :)


 * I don't quite follow your third question, so I'll generally address the issue. Apologies if I miss my target. The BLP folks are most likely to jump on issues where controversial information is added about living people that is improperly sourced or out of balance. But while BLP is a special consideration on Wikipedia, WP:V and WP:NPOV are core policies covering all of our articles. If you stay within those policies, you should have no problems whether the individuals are living or not. In all cases, material added to the project should reflect what reliable sources are saying in a way that accurately conveys the balance of coverage, whether positive or negative. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree with everything Moonriddengirl has said above, asking you please to read the last 3 sentences in her last paragraph carefully. Also, if you are adding an external link and there are already a lot of links, please note that WP:EL says the number of links should be kept to a minimum, and " As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors." Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One of my elementary school teachers used to say, "You are allowed to chew gum as long as I can't tell you're chewing it." Think about that, it's not as simple as it first seems.


 * I'm assuming you're not a profit-making enterprise and as long as you are adding links to full texts of works discussed (such as a P.G. Wodehouse novel) and there aren't already several links to other sources (Google Books, Project Gutenberg) your contributions would be welcome, in my personal opinion.
 * As far as your questions:
 * The conflict of interest exists independent of your actions but by merit of your relationship. Acknowledging it openly and not indulging it in a promotional manner as you are doing is the best route.  You might want to say something on your user page about it.
 * Completely irrelevant whether you are on work time or not, see #1.
 * I'm not sure how this plays into adding links to primary sources.


 * You might also do some of what you're planning and then ask this board to look at what you've done. Also, thank you for having so much integrity in the first place. Drawn Some (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If by historical figures you mean "people who are dead and have been for a while" then no, WP:BLP does not apply. Other standards still do.  If you mean people who have made history but are still living, such as politicians, then yes, BLP very definitely applies.  Thanks for disclosing the possible COI. Mishlai (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

COI on Kelly Bensimon
appears to have been created solely for the purpose of editing (and polishing up) the article about. On one of the few edits which indicate a reason for editing, the user claims to be the publicist for Bensimon and is therefore "authorized" to make changes. Wholesale copyright infringement is a second violation for this user; however, the clear COI as well as the edits themselves (which are promotional materials and non-netural) warrant a blocking of this user. Warnings have been made but it appears that the user does not see the warnings or does not appear to consider that they are in COI as well as copyright and vandalism violation. PR (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I warned about removing sourced material and conflict of interest. There is a long history of warnings so if there are more problems it would not be inappropriate to ask an administrator to ban the editor. Drawn Some (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Style777 has been given a final warning. The most blatant violation so far is the removal of others' comments from the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, can you look at the move of the page by Style777? From looking at Google, the original page name is the correct one.  I can't move it back and I'm not sure exactly how it was moved.  Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Discuss the proper article title on the talk page. If consensus is found, an admin can move the page back. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I got feedback from a couple of editors and it was a rogue move on the part of Style777 so I undid it. My hesitation was that I did not understand that it was possible to move an article to a redirect page and was under the impression that an administrator had to have done it. Drawn Some (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

COI on Humboldt, Saskatchewan

 * - obvious promotion, nothing NPOV so far Evil saltine (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Username reported as promotional Drawn Some (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: They said it wasn't a blatantly promotional name and referred it here. As the edits have been NPOV maybe energy would be better spent elsewhere. Drawn Some (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update. I have been trying to help them, obviously it is a new user.  I investigated and Humboldt is trying to increase tourism.  I will continue to monitor and remove promotional language and help wikify the article. Drawn Some (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They continued to edit and expand the article. For a town of 6000 there is a huge amount of information much of it promotional in nature. I suggest removing large parts of the "attractions" section as the editor clearly has a COI with regards to this. Should we perhaps point them towards wikitravel? Smartse (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Smartse, the Wikitravel suggestion is excellent but I'll let you do it since I am completely unfamiliar with it. Several times when I or you fixed something they undid it so I figured just wait until they are finished and then clean it up.  For instance, the murals could be mentioned but I am shocked at the amount of information included, honestly I don't think tourists would care about them anyway.  There has been no response or comment from the editor that I am aware of.  It is a new user and not-malicious or self-serving so I'm trying not to bite. Drawn Some (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Washington University in St. Louis PR Department

 * - Looks like a role account by Washington University in St. Louis' PR Department. Only made 1 edit (add logo to Washington University in St. Louis page). Jwilkinsen Jr (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged the talkpage and reported the username. Drawn Some (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update:username was blocked. Drawn Some (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Eric Cantor



 * This users geographic location and limited area of focus, Eric Cantor and National Council for a New America (which is a project of Cantors) along with their sharp POV edits that seek to remove unsightly information about Cantor raised a sparkle in my eye. I have notified them about COI, and they have continued to edit the Cantor article and related talk page.  I let it go and began to work with them, but they are incessent with their POV.  They then signed a post ",Brad" , which I believe to refer to Brad Dayspring, the press officer for Eric Cantor's office and who has done some work for the National Council for a New America.  I bring this here to get others feelings on the subject. Thanks. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 05:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Geolocate also confirms that the IP is located in Arlington, Virginia the same place that the National Council for a New America's first meeting was held. Smartse (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not this person. I was simply editing something from a NPOV; if you want to talk about a COI, look at TharsHammar's user page and the fact that he even knows who this person is, he clearly has an agenda.  This is a shared IP in my dorm, so I don't know what you are talking about.  98.218.204.115 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe there might be grounds for a counter-claim against TharsHammar. We had a disagreement of including material from a conspiracy theory; we were working through that, in what I thought was becoming a productive process. Frankly, thought I was even getting to know him a bit - told him about how I edit what some would consider to be progressive videos/documentaries for a living, while I am going through school. Get back from class and check this page - turns out he's gone on an additional tirade, trying to invalidate my opinions. I do take this as an indication that he was losing the debate of the original issue at hand. I think his behavior violates the spirit of the project. 98.218.204.115 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to work with you, but I have no intention of wasting my time to work with PR flack, so I wanted to see others opinions on the matter before continuing on our discussion. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint you, but you are working with a student bro. Also, I don't think anything that happened justified this response.  I was polite, assumed your good faith, avoided personal attacks on you, and was welcoming in the context of the debate.  You have been rude, assumed that I was not acting in good faith(see this thread), have personally attacked me repeatedly (see this thread) and haven't been welcoming (see this thread).  Didn't want to turn up the heat, but you brought this forum to bear.  I think your conduct on this issue has really violated the spirit of this project and community.  98.218.204.115 (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have warned the IP editor 98.218 for edit warring on this article. I perceive that he has already made six reverts on May 11. All parties should wait to get consensus on the Talk page before making controversial changes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your warning has been received. However, I do assert that I was reverting the addition of biased and poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).  That said, I believe a consensus has been reached on the article page, which makes this issue moot.  98.218.204.115 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you were accused too quickly - It just seems suspicious to people when someone from a similar area and the same 1st name as someone's PR man removes information that seemed to be portraying the PR man in rather poor light. Smartse (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your apology. First, I don't think the section put anyone in a bad light except Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is a place for verifiable facts, not for posting internet gossip and rumors.  98.218.204.115 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since 98.218 reverted yet again after an official warning, he is now blocked 24 hours for WP:3RR. (Seven reverts in one day can't be considered a good-faith effort towards reaching neutral wording in this article). An editor on the other side of the debate is now at 3R and has also been warned. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User Facinghistory
- User has been adding links to www.facinghistory.org to a variety of articles, and I've reverted them and warned the user, but I'm really more here to make sure I haven't been too aggressive in dealing with this user. The link itself doesn't seem to obviously violate WP:EL, I just don't think it adds much to the articles - the sites provides resources for teachers, but I'm not sure that's necessary in a Wikipedia article. Also, sometimes the information is secondhand, like this addition, which links to a brief mention at facinghistory.org about a Southern Poverty Law Centre report, when it would have been better practice to link directly to the SPLC site. The site is non-profit, but it does accept donations and sell publications, so they could benefit from increased traffic that could come from Wikipedia. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reported the user to WP:UAA, clearly a promotional username and clearly an SPA only interested in pushing their own website. – ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Metal Gear fan-film
The user has been editing both articles to promote a fan-made film on his Youtube channel and website, which is a clear violation of Conflict of Interest guidelines. The user asserts that his film is notable due to being mentioned on David Hayter's website, but I personally believe that's not sufficient enough of a source to assert notability. Even if the film was notable, its still self-promotion due to the user being the film's producer. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I left warnings regarding COI and spamming on Mario1286's talk page. Clearly the behavior is inappropriate.


 * Just so you know, the bar for mentioning something in an article is not as high as for being the subject of an article, for instance, there may be important members of a list that are not sufficiently notable to have an article. -Drawn Some (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

- Adding Historical Information
I work at Barkley, the PR firm for Lee Jeans. We've been asked to update the Wiki page with historical information. When I try and add information, as well as additional sources to back up my content, it gets taken down by Cambridge Weather. I have no idea how this content is any different from Levi Strauss and Co. I understand that as their PR firm, you feel this is biased info, but it's strictly historical content, not promotional. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.240.241 (talk • contribs)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for wanting to help. I suggest you start by reading and understanding WP:COI. COI edits are not prohibited outright but we ask that you be careful. It's particularly important that you make your COI perfectly clear, especially since you work for a PR firm and are being paid for this. To do this it's absolutely essential that you create an account, that this by used only by you (not as a role account for your firm), and you always log in when you edit. Then you must disclose your COI both on your talk page and on the talk pages that you edit, where COI exists.


 * I took a look at the text that was reverted. It was unsourced and most people would consider it marketing fluff. Try to stick to the facts, and cite secondary sources. A corporate web site would not be considered a good secondary source. I'm sure others will have suggestions too. Good luck. Rees11 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all thanks for your honesty. Taking the action Rees11 has suggested would be a good idea and will mean you will be viewed more favourably by other editors. An example disclosure can be found here - you could take a look at their contributions page too to get an idea of what is ok to put in. It is essential that any information you add is from reliable sources and represents a neutral point of view. If you are unsure as to whether information you are adding meets these criteria you can add the information to the talk page and add too. This will alert someone here that you would like a proposed edit looking at. Someone could then help with the specific wording if they feel it may be slightly promotional. With regards to the comparison with the Levi Strauss & Co. article you'll notice that the information is presented in a neutral way (admittedly unreferenced unfortunately) and I can't find any evidence of COI editing.


 * I also noticed from the page history that Tvanwinkle may be an employee of Barkley, having only edited Lee (jeans) and Sonic Drive-In. I've left a message on their talk page telling them about this discussion but if you could also let them know that would be useful (assuming my assumption is correct).


 * I hope this helps, feel free to ask any other questions. Smartse (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Longevity myths, Longevity claims, etc.


Guidance needed on content dispute: As a partisan in a content dispute, I will begin by only giving the links relevant to COI and requesting advice from at least two admins or other experienced folks on how I should proceed, given the full context of those links. JJB 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions at top of page, please make a header for your complaint which includes the name of the article, and list the editors who you believe have a conflict of interest. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, missed that part. However, I'd rather that an uninvolved user summarize any impression of the links I provided before I get too detailed. Thank you. JJB 11:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look. Ryoung122 is a longevity claims researcher who had a page about himself deleted back in 2007. Other than this however I can't quite see the COI - he's not inserting links to books written by him etc. In my opinion this may not be the best place to sort this dispute out. Some form of mediation may be more suited. Smartse (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, did you read the whole section related to the first diff, and the one for the second diff? How should one define "refrain from editing COI articles"? What is the best process you could suggest for me to invoke? Would it help if I talked about what he is inserting? JJB 12:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I should have looked at things a little more closely - I see that Ryoung122 promised back in August 2008 to "refrain from editing COI articles" after being blocked but continues to do so. I'm not certain whether this promise was made as a condition of being unblocked or whether he made it voluntarily, hopefully someone can shed light on this. I've messaged Ryoung122 about this discussion and also Maxim who blocked Ryoung122 in the first place and BrownHairedGirl who also has experience with this topic. Smartse (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryoung122 was indeed at the centre of several disputes a few years ago relating extreme longevity. As well as conduct problems, the content issues fell under two headings: original research, and COI.
 * Much as I deplore his conduct at the time, I know that he sought a fresh start when he was unblocked, so I think it's only fair to assess this current dispute on its own merits and check whether it really resents a continuation of those problems. To be honest, I don't actually see either happening here, though if I have missed something, please post the diffs.
 * None of the edits I have seen so far appear to relate to either Young himself or his colleagues, so I don't see any COI. Nor have I noticed any original research, so in principle his editing in this area should be okay so long as he doesn't cite himself or his colleagues or push a particular interest. The edits I have seen are all on general points relating to the concept and history of longevity, and I don't see that as a problem. But again, if I have missed something, let's see the diffs.
 * I do see a low-level edit war, which at some points seems to be over rather trivial issues such as bolding title words, but nothing yet to warrant outside action.
 * There is clearly at various points a divergence of view on the wider issues between John J. Bulten and Ryoung122, and that doesn't seem to be resolving itself effectively, but on the face of it that's not a COI problem. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for setting this on firm footing. If it appears to Smartse that Ryoung is editing COI articles after agreeing not to as condition of unblock, that fact makes credible the view that Wikipedians should determine if "problematic conduct" has been reengaged per WP:INDEF, requiring clarifying the limits of his probation; the conduct review should also include issues of being respectful and getting along, and because of the history the scope should be cast wide for other issues. It also doesn't appear appropriate to list long evidence here, so I will continue by a quick allusion. First, there is evidence of personal attack in the numerous quotes in question (11) in my first link above; these are all fresh from Talk:Longevity myths and Talk:Longevity claims and so technically need no diffs. Second, there is evidence of COI in very severe idea promotion, self-admitted as BHG noted in that first link. These ideas include very firm, long-held POVs about how WP should be organized on this topic, which has been a well-watered form of walled garden for years, against which the casual overflying birds are heavily dissuaded. The simplest demonstration link of this is my yet-unanswered questions to Ryoung that imply that these POVs are unsourced and improper for controlling WP with. So my immediate needs are: (1) a forum for presenting and discussing my evidence for conduct review; (2) an independent clarification of the unblock terms and Ryoung's interpretation thereof; (3) concurrence in my view that my 10 unanswered questions need answering if Ryoung's view of the articles structure is to continue. There may be more. Thanks. JJB 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you consider an RFC? This may better addressed as a content RFC rather than a user RFC, to avoid personalising the issues, but I don't have much experience with RFCs. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the issues are getting harder and harder to separate from personalization. Am I wrong in thinking that it is appropriate to request somewhere a review of an indef-unblock with conditions, to determine fulfillment of those conditions? And anyone else have a suggestion on what to do and where to go to get my list of content questions answered? JJB 22:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would contact the unblocking administrator or an administrator involved in the decision who is aware of the conditions for unblocking. The alternative would be to take that information to WP:AN I believe.  Drawn Some (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not hearing any consensus as to how I am to proceed. No offense intended, but if Smartse agrees Ryoung122 continues to edit COI articles after promising to refrain, is there anyone on this board who can say something decisive about that? Am I misunderstanding the board's purpose? Thank you. JJB 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * JJB, I have seen no prima facie evidence of COI editing. Concerns have been expressed about POV-pushing (which is what "idea promotion" may amount to), but I think it is very unhelpful to conflate the two. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: well, first, here is a related issue I discovered appropriate for this board: what about edits from the period in which the editor engaged in verified COI activity that have not yet been rebalanced? Unique in my WP experience, Ryoung inserted a long, original, wholly unsourced "essay" (Young's word) into longevity myths in 2005, which still informs much of the article today. I tagged for fact-checking every sentence that originates in that unsourced essay, but of course there are very many; full story at Talk:Longevity myths. Isn't this retention of OR quite a bit over the edge and, having been verified to be from within a COI period, appropriate for additional Wikipedian review? As to your question of what is actual COI editing today, although it appears Smartse is convinced, let me get some more diffs, but I hope greater length in this discussion will not be a problem. JJB 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 evidence

 * 1) First, "when editors write to promote their own interests" is a warning sign of WP:COI. Guideline implies that writing on an area in which one is personally involved, while failing to write neutrally, cite reliable sources (WP:V), or watch out for one's own biases is COI. Ryoung should "exercise great caution" with articles related to the GRG project and is "strongly encouraged" to suggest edits on talk instead of directly. It is clear that the guideline requires a person with COI to exert very great levelheadedness in ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and nonoriginality.
 * 2) We've established that Ryoung is very involved with GRG, that articles about supercentenarians are related to the GRG project, and a simple review of Ryoung's contrib history shows strong WP:SPA activity in this area, requiring the highest standards of care. We've established that Ryoung dismisses disagreement with very strong language, quoted in my first link above, which is a pretty clear disconnect with the highest standards requested. We've established that he doesn't think wholesale editing of articles about supercentenarians requires any special care as long as he doesn't edit articles about himself or GRG, at least not very much. So it appears that there is a general attitude contrary to WP's principles of COI that almost needs no diffs. Now as to specifics:
 * 3) The presenting issue was failure to abide by naming guidelines WP:WTA and MOS:BOLDTITLE. Here and here and here he deletes alternate bolded names of "longevity myths" which redirect there, in the midst of a rename discussion, calling them OR, as if "longevity myths" is not, which is hotly debated. Per guidelines, use of the word "myth" requires sourceable proof of a sociology or mythology background for the topic, which has never been provided even after repeated requests.
 * 4) A whole set of his undoing of my edits on May 1 (see edit history), where he reinstated the word "myth", uncritically undid several other good improvements I made, out of apparent overzeal to remove the offending word: With Temo he reverts edits about himself; ditto with Coates, where I had the article saying that he and the Washington Post researched Coates, and he restored it to saying he only did the research; here and here the revert does not even relate to "myth" and is obviously overzealous; more of the same at, , , , . Here the revert is only on the word "myths", but the article is GRG!
 * 5) Here is a wholesale revert of lots of different improvements; he undoes sourced inserts, style and org improvements, and basically throws out everything with the bathwater.
 * 6) He also still does some basic unsourced OR inserts of specialized information. If these observations or views are significant enough for inclusion in themselves, not OR, and not unduly weighted, they should have been easily sourced, but there is no sourcing:, and here where he reinstates his self-decided and completely arbitrary requirement that longevity claims is limited to the age range 113-130, which is wholly unsourced. This is identical to the 2005 pattern, only less of the same offense.
 * 7) Summary: There is a general self-identified commitment to edit COI articles. Further, I allege specific COI in 16 of his last 30 mainspace edits, in the past 2 weeks. With William Coates, he restored a claim that he did research which the Wash Post attributes to "a researcher for the [GRG]"; I had it more neutrally as he and the Post (yes, not precisely as the source worded it); but he was not mentioned by the Post and might be deleted from the article fully. There is also move warring and significant talkpage policy violation in that time also. I may expand this section if I choose to take more time to look beyond this brief period. Does this help? I trust I haven't overdone it? JJB 20:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * JJB, thank you for taking the time to post all that evidence, which must have taken quite some time to collect.
 * I can identify a several clear COI edits in that lot, involving cases where he himself claims or is reported to have been the researcher involved, e.g., . There isn't much of this, but after all the trouble before, the level should be zero.
 * There are also a number of edits in which Young is clearly promoting the approach to longevity and the verification thereof which is applied by GRG. That seems to be fit, as you suggest, the definition of COI as promoting an idea you are associated with. I don't know whether GRG's approach reflects any academic consensus on the subject, but even if it does there is a problem of Young's career being directly related to the acceptance of GRG's methodologies.  I know that Young argues with merit that he and his colleagues have tried to bring some rigour to a field full of hype, but it seems problematic for Young himself to be the person pushing the significance of that idea on wikipedia.
 * There are a few other problematic things in there, such as quite a few unexplained reverts, some of which seem both petty and wrong, e.g., . There is also a very low level edit summary usage, and and a worryingly high level of reverts
 * However, the core of this seems to me to be a content dispute over two very different views of how to label reports of extreme longevity, as myths or claims or narratives, and there is discussion of it at Talk:Longevity myths. JJB, who has filed this report, is a protagonist on one side of that argument, and it seems to me that the major issue here is how to resolve that dispute. I strongly urge an RFC setting out all these issues. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings,

To me, avoiding COI means that I am not here to insert citations of my own work. In the past, I started articles on myself and persons such as Dr. Coles. This was done, in part, not simply for self-promotion but to answer the question many were asking in the Mary Ramsey Wood dispute, "just who do you think you are" and "why should we listen to you." Clearly, my Masters thesis has gained some traction, winning a national award:

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwger/6113.html

In agreeing to come back, I agreed to avoid COI editing which, to me, meant avoiding the insertion of references that were sourced to me or to groups that I work with. In cases where I thought a self-referenced source supported an idea, I agreed to post them on the "talk" page. However, that should NOT preclude my editing of content. I'm particularly disturbed that the above COI charges are from an admittedly PARTISAN editor who has made statements suggesting he hasn't read any literature on the subject until this week, yet has made literally hundreds of changes. This editor, JJBulten, has also made statements which come across as not in the realm of academic or encyclopedic interest. In short, he actually believes longevity myths: he believes that Abraham lived to 175, literally. He believes that Catherine, Countess of Desmond lived to 140. And that is his right. However, it is NOT his right to use Wikipedia to push his POV editing on others. Further, this "attack the messenger" strategy of referring me to the COI board raises major issues of whether Wikipedia is being misused. Ryoung 122 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Robert, this would be a good time to take another read of WP:COI. The issues raised here don't just include some wider problems of CO, but edits which clearly relate to boosting your own role in particular cases, such as [.
 * As per my reply to you on my talk page, I strongly urge both to open an RFC to settle the wider dispute. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BHG. Like I said, that evidence only took looking at the last 30 diffs and flagging 16 of them, so no sweat. But I am concerned that if I take RFC to any single page, or to the World's Oldest People WikiProject, I would get only one side of the issue and not get the widespread WP input that was achieved, e.g., at the AFD that I linked, and that might be better achieved through RFC/U. There are enough issues I haven't stated that I want to be sure I am proceeding correctly and not subject to (too many) false accusations during the process. For instance, Ryoung is continuing his original research about my beliefs, as he has no source to back up his claims about the literature I've read or about my beliefs about Abraham or the Countess; he has misread and (deliberately?) misinterpreted my statements on the issues. So (anyone), please advise where an RFC should go. I am also concerned that if there are clear COI issues, there should be a clear COI board response. I don't want to push so hard as to be thought a forum-shopper, but on this board the answer I was thinking of would be either (1) no COI, or (2) COI, action taken, or (3) John there's COI but you should ignore it because (why?). If I've misunderstood please advise. Ryoung has just reverted my last month of considered, sourced changes into oblivion and I really don't know how to avoid edit war about this, as I don't think my reverting once or twice will do the job. JJB 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Status request
No offense, but it's been my experience that reporting complex cases to these kinds of boards does not usually bring anyone forward who is willing to step in and propose an action that (it seems to me) would be the very purpose for the board's existence. (Also it's been my experience that when I was reported to this board for being just an unpaid Ron Paul supporter, I got ganged up on and blocked for 3 days, for reasons that to this day remain specious to me.) So I hope you understand that a lack of response would only confirm my disappointment in WikiProcedure's ability to solve problems when one really needs it. Thank you for this space. JJB 02:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Some Bizzare Records


User Stevopearce has been editing the article for Some Bizzare, and his user name is the same as the head of the label. The IP editor has been making the same edits to the article as well, and would seem to be the same person. I'm the main author of the section that Stevopearce has been deleting from the article (which is critical of the label and Mr. Pearce, but appropriately referenced in my opinion), so I'm not sure how objective I am. Could someone else please look into this possible COI case? The editor in question could just be a Some Bizzare fanboy.... -- Foetusized (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've warned both users for removal of content and invited them to comment on these accusations. I agree with Foetusized that they may well be the same person as the edits are extremely similar but we shouldn't jump to any conclusions. The content removed is obviously controversial - it regards Some Bizzare Records not paying artists but does have reasonably good sources to back it up. I'm not sure whether it could be removed due to the accusatory nature, but at any rate the unexplained removal shouldn't be tolerated in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The way it is described in the article it seems quite neutral, and anyway I am not aware of any denial of the accusation by Mr. Pearce. But I am familiar with the industrial scene, so maybe not the most unbiased. And I couldn't think of a fanboy removing that, since it is more an historical curiosity than anything else. Jgc2003 (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

165.160.2.20

 * Accounts


 * Links

I encounterred this user spamming links for cscglobal.com into multiple articles, so I reported this to WT:WPSPAM. I was checking to see if one of the sharedIP tags should be added to the user's talk page and discovered that the whois traces back to Corporation Service Company, which is the same organization as the url they were adding.

I wasn't sure if reporting the issue here or at WT:WPSPAM was more appropriate, so I've left a mention in both locations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikirugg1

 * - Said user created a page entitled Rugg Williams. Given the unambiguous POV tone of the article, not to mention that the user and the name of the article (It's not enough for a report too WP:UAA, but close enough for my suspicion to file it here), I am certain the user intends to make edits with a considerable conflict of interest. TheLetterM (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a COI to me. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 05:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:JedIpsen and possible efforts to promote a Mr. Stephen Young
While looking into some claims I found a bit odd I found that User:JedIpsen could be the same person found on this page. In which case he has an interest in promoting the literature Mr. Stephen Young has produced and Mr. Youngs involvement with Caux Round Table. I am not really sure where to go with this. I have previously opened a post here on AN/I regarding material which is in the now newly created article Stephen B. Young Unomi (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the COI the page is a blatant copyright violation so I've nominated it for deletion accordingly under Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. The talk page seems to suggest that it was created previously in 2008 and also deleted. Smartse (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Constance Demby hyping Constance Demby

 * - autobio spam on own article since 2007, has admitted to being the subject in 2008 ("As the artist, all information is from my official website www.constancedemby.com" in edit summary), has repeatedly inserted the same over-the-top spam in 2008 and in 2009 about being "hailed as the 21st century’s Mozart / Bach / Beethoven", etc. 62.147.37.184 (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * also which seems to be Constance too (one month before creating the account reported above): filling her user page with the very same "21st century’s Mozart" article, censoring her birth year from the categories and from the lead... (Encyclopedic justice: her user names hint that her middle name is Mary, and with this knowledge I found her ASCAP profile confirming it. And her birth year is confirmed by Piero Scaruffi, so now I can source the article for: Constance Mary Demby, born 1939) 62.147.37.184 (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Feature model


This article was created by self proclaimed experts in the field. They are citing themselves (which is allowed) but I'm not sure if the article would exist if it wasn't for them. I've been discussing the COI issues on the talk page but I'm not sure what to do next. More opinions would be useful. Thanks Smartse (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the article and did some minor cleanup & tagging including moving the article to put the second word in lower case. The external links don't seem to be promotional and the article does not seem promotional or POV.  I can't speak as to whether or not the article would exist without the particular contributors, my eyes glazed over trying to read it.  Drawn Some (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "I'm not sure if the article would exist if it wasn't for them." Smartse? I'm quite certain that the article wouldn't have existed if it were not for us but that holds for any article on WP, i.e., it wouldn't exist without its authors. (Assuming there's no divine intervention involved :) ) Mikolasj (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean would someone who is not an expert in the field create the article? Is this a notable field? As I've pointed out on the talk page I think your efforts would be better spent improving the other articles relating to it. Smartse (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Smartse, we seem to be going in circles. I fail to understand why experts should not create articles, I would rather read something by an expert than a dilettante. At this point I don't see any evidence that there is COI as self-citation is not by itself COI. As far as notability goes, you can check google scholar for the first article Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study; it has 1070 citations. I would like also to note that all the 3 authors are from different research groups and countries (Ireland, Spain, USA) and know each other thanks to the interest in feature models. I appreciate the suggestion that I should work on a different article but I simply don't have time for that now.Mikolasj (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been following the discussion and something seems unclear to me, Smartse, is it a COI issue or more of a notability issue? For the notability issue it seems that the topic seems active since the early 90s and it's already something, no? Jgc2003 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible that the article might survive if cleaned up. At present it seems like a jungle of buzzwords and presupposes many things not in evidence. It is worrisome that all the citations are to conference proceedings. These tend to be only lightly reviewed if at all, and don't have the credibility of regular journal publications. For some existing articles in the same area, i.e. 'abstract ways of thinking about software,' editors might look at . EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In computer science conferences have a higher status than journals. This goes against what happens in most other fields like mathematics and causes significant grief when it comes to promotion inside an university. See the opinion of Mike Ernst, the opinion of Jeffrey Ullman, the impact factors of various conferences and journals and conferences computed by CiteSeer, the guidelines of the Computing Research Association for evaluating Computer Scientists explicitly state that "Publications in the prestige conferences is inferior to prestige journals only in having significant page limitations and little time to polish the paper. In those dimensions that count most, conferences are superior." Pretty much every computer scientist will holds this view. In short, it is a misconception that journals are better than conferences in computer science, even though it is generally true in other fields. Rgrig (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok if I understand correctly it might aim to look like the article Enterprise_engineering but not like this one Algebra_of_systems (it was the first I clicked on and I was a bit confused by it) Jgc2003 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston, you are saying that conference proceedings "tend to be only lightly reviewed if at all". What are the basis for this statement? My experience is that an article is reviewed at least by 3 reviewers and the acceptance rate is between 15-35 percent. How do you suggest they eliminate 70% of the submissions without reviewing them?! You can take a look at software engineering conferences statistics.Mikolasj (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me comment that if the article shouldn't exist because of WP:NOR or for another reason it should be listed for AfD. Just reading the article, COI is not readily apparent and I believe this topic should be closed at this noticeboard. Drawn Some (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've messaged some members of the computing wikiproject and asked them for their opinions to try and move this forward to resolution. Smartse (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Smartse, I think it would really help if you explained why you believe that there is a COI.Mikolasj (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Conference procedings are reviewed for accuracy (that really what was presented), but not for notability, as it's assumed that anyone invited to present at a conference is notable, nor for subject matter accuracy.  We (Wikipedia) do not have to agree with the conference organizers.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Who has ever said anything about conferences and notability? I said that the fact that the seminal article has 1000 citations manifests notability. Anyhow, conferences do take into account "interestingness" and novelty of articles: as I said typical software engineering conference rejects around 70% of submissions and it would be naive to believe that all these rejections are based merely on mistakes in the papers.Mikolasj (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * About notability I think the category pointed out by EdJohnston is not a good example. If you look only at the A section you got first  Agate which has a nice authority argument for notability (in the discussion section), but no clear notability proof, then  Algebra of systems which is clearly a Coi with no notability (new research idea of 2007).  Applications architecture has no reference and no purpose.  ArchiMate is from what I understand a research software from 2004 so quite recent.  ATAM has no references.  Architecture Domain has only a single reference.  Architecture of Integrated Information Systems  is with  ArchiMate the only article satisfying in the A section (at least for me).Jgc2003 (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, EdJohnston also says that conference proceedings "tend to be only lightly reviewed if at all", so apparently he has no idea what he's talking about.Mikolasj (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm no software engineer, but upon a quick skim of the content, it seems to make logical sense to me. MaverickSolutions (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got an MSc and PhD in Computer Science and I see the problem as being bad writing rather than COI or a non-notable subject. I think the underlying problem is that all three of these users are Single-purpose account's which is rapidly leading to a bad style / bad writing. Us computer geeks aren't noted for good writing. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback Stuartyeates. I agree that the article needs more work. A big issue is that some of the basics should be in the Software Product Line article but that one is not very good. Moreover, writing it is very difficult as SPL is a broad field, it's a bit like writing an article "Mathematics". If you have followed the discussion above, we have received rather nonsensical feedback whose purpose escapes me. Instead of having these pointless discussions I could have improved the article but I'm little motivated to do so after this experience and I rather feel like becoming a zero-purpose account.Mikolasj (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel that way, as you can see from this noticeboard there are plenty of people who try to create or change articles with which they have a conflict of interest. I try to ensure that COI guidelines are followed. I don't especially think that you are trying to gain anything from creating this article but at the same time it should certainly be examined if someone is citing themselves on WP. I hope you agree that when you read a company's article you should be able to be fairly sure that it hasn't been edited by their PR people. As I've said before I think that you could really improve Software product lines. At the moment it's difficult for anyone to understand Feature model (no offence intended) and if Software product lines was improved maybe it would make more sense. Sorry again for biting. Smartse (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Smartse, the Software product lines is not perfect, even worse, wikepdia is not perfect and  children in Africa are starving. Alas, I can do only so much in my lifetime. However, I feel as you are not sticking to the point. This noticeboard bears the title  COI so I suggest we sort that out first. It feels quite Sisyphusic to work on a WP entry when COI is still in question.Mikolasj (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a stab at rewriting the opening not 100% sure it's entirely correct, but at least it's in English and not software speak. Feel free to correct any factual errors. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted your changes as I couldn't make any sense out of the text.Mikolasj (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be because I'm not a native English speaker but I do not understand the text anymore (even though I wrote most of the original version). Especially the sentences "Feature models are visually represented visually by means of feature diagrams.", "Software is written by feature by feature within an overall architecture and the feature model..."Mikolasj (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that after a month or so I haven't seen one single argument why anyone should believe that there is COI in the article (I did see some poor-quality, incoherent, misinformed feedback and text mangling). If that is the case, is it really appropriate for the article to be tagged as COI and be on the COI noticeboard?Mikolasj (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Linda Maguire by User:LindaMaguire
Wanted to bring Linda Maguire to people's attention. is actively editing (and getting bombarded by WP:ABFIL messages) and I don't want to interrupt before there is a final product, but the initial impression is of a csd-g11 candidate. Wknight94 talk  16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've cut out some of the blatantly promotional information but the article could do with more work. I've asked someone else to take a look from wikiproject Opera too. Smartse (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ssilvers who is a member of WikiProject Musical Theatre has taken a look and advised the user what would be required to improve the article. I've looked for references myself (google news: "Linda Maguire" opera) but can't find any that aren't pay sites. I think we should wait a few days and if no sources are provided put it to AfD as Ssilvers has suggested on the article's talk page. Smartse (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No sign of any references so I have proposed deletion as it seems uncontroversial. Smartse (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nccwebmaster
I wish to bring to your attention that there appears to be a conflict of interest where User:Nccwebmaster seems to be the webmaster of the New Creation Church and he is currently making edits on the wiki entry Joseph_Prince. Joseph Prince is the senior pastor of the New Creation Church and many of the unfavorable points written about Joseph Prince by others were deliberately removed and suppressed by User:Nccwebmaster.

Please help to resolve this dispute. Thanks.

Ahnan (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've warned the user for removal of content and notified them of this discussion and COI guidelines. I've also watchlisted the article and will keep an eye on it to make sure the content isn't removed again. Smartse (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Smartse. Happy to note that the objectivity of Wiki can be upheld :) Ahnan (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Smartse, we understand of the conflict of interest policy and we wish that an Wiki administrator to step in to put an official note and stand on this article. Till then we will still undo the article. We wish that if by any chance you could help to inform an administrator to step in, we will be very glad as it will help to resolve this COI issue. Thank you Ahnan for bringing this up for discussion, appreciate it.

Nccwebmaster (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Smartse, Ahnan, we have removed the controvesy section and also edited some section on the page. Main reason is that the sources that was cited was not from a reliable source, but from forums and personal blogs (which are not neutral). We have kept the one cited The Straits Times as it is our national paper. Please let us know if we are doing the right thing according to wikipedia. Nccwebmaster (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize several points:
 * 1) Per wp:blp "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." - this means that BLP applies here.  High standards of sourcing are appropriate.
 * 2) This is a blog and this is a web forum.  Both are self-published sources, which per wp:blp are not acceptable to cite for information about living persons in any article.
 * 3) This, this, and this  appear to be reliable sources.
 * 4) Nccwebmaster your request for a "Wiki administrator to step in to put an official note and stand on this article." leads me to believe that you have a (very common) misconception about the role of administrators on Wikipedia.  Their opinions are not any more valid than that of other editors, nor or are they more "official".  Administrators are simply users who have been entrusted with more powerful tools and who contribute their time to many of the difficult housekeeping tasks that are required to maintain the Wiki.  The content of Wikipedia is a community effort that is consensus based.
 * 5) Be careful to weight coverage of Pastor Joseph Prince and the financial controversy according to its fair share of the church's notability, per wp:undue  "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
 * 6) Nccwebmaster please be cautious of wp:coi concerns while editing this article or others where a conflict of interest may exist.

Separately from these content concerns, Ahnan, I would like to say that this and this  are pretty hostile ways to deal with someone who is as new to Wikipedia as Nccwebmaster is (or anyone really.)  Please don't bite the newcomers, and please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. If Nccwebmaster was "rude" or "lied" at some point in the discussion or edit summaries, then that has escaped my notice. Assume good faith, I certainly think that Nccwebmaster appears to be trying to operate with respect for our policies and our editors. It's better to stick to discussing content, anyway.Mishlai (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And I just realized that I'm Biting a newcomer myself. I apologize Ahnan, I wasn't thorough and didn't notice that you are also new to Wikipedia.  Please allow me to scale back my criticism, but also please realize that all of those points about how to address this and how not to address it still apply.  Thank you for your understanding and welcome to Wikipedia. Mishlai (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mishlai, I thank you for further explaining to us the policies of Wikipedia especially on the reliable source and the role of a Wiki administrator. It was our bad of not complying to Wiki policies by removing the cited article from our national paper — The Straits Times and we will be more watchful on our edits in the future. We are still looking forward to see a template or standard from Wikipedia so that this issue may be resolved soon.
 * Nccwebmaster (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to answer your questions as fully as possible, but I do not understand what you mean when you ask for "a template or standard". If by template you mean a set layout for building an article of this type, then I'm not sure that we have such a thing - or at least I don't know of it.  Our Featured Articles are articles that the Wikipedia community has decided are of high quality, so you might take a look at some of those to see what some "good" articles that meet Wikipedia standards might look like.


 * If by standards you mean our policies and guidelines, then many of those are in the Policy section of the Welcome Box that was posted on your talk page. You aren't expected to know all of Wikipedia policy as a new editor, but of course all policy will still apply to the article.  The most important ones here are probably Verifiability, Reliable Sources, Biographies of Living Persons, Neutral Point of View, and What Wikipedia is Not.  Because of your personal connection to and interest in the subject of the article, Conflict of Interest is also relevant.  We understand that you will have a point of view on the topic, but we must ask you to attempt to make neutral edits to the best of your ability to follow our policies/guidelines.  The same neutrality standard also applies to the editor(s) you are in dispute with, for though they may not have a conflict of interest, it is pretty clear to me that everyone involved has a point of view on the topic.


 * Thank you also for choosing a user name that made your affiliations transparent. We appreciate a forthright approach.  I think based on this conversation and based on this your acknowledgment that negative information from reliable sources like The Straits Times can have a place in the article, that you've demonstrated a willingness to follow policy.  If you have more questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page.


 * I would largely classify your edits as non-controversial as you were, for the most part, removing material that violated wp:blp. There were some inappropriate removals, but I think that this was based on an incomplete understanding of policy, rather than an attempt to circumvent policy in order to serve personal interest.  I don't think any action based on COI needs to be taken here, and I suspect that none will be needed in the future either.  I hope the two of you will be able cooperate to write an article that represents the topic from a neutral point of view, using reliable sources.  Good luck with it.  Be sure to use the article's talk page to communicate with the other editors, and don't engage in edit-wars.


 * I'd recommend closing this out after the other parties have been given time to bring any additional concerns, diffs, etc. that might have been missed. I think/hope we're done here.  Mishlai (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mishlai for further making edits to the entries and also explaining in details to us the policies that Wikipedia had. We are satisfied with the current entry (last edited by Stuartyeates) and appreciate all the effort and time to sort out these dispute. It is unfortunate that we have to come to this noticeboard to raise a discussion, and with many edits from unknown IP addresses, it does not help in this situation. But if this is the only way to come to a peaceful conclusion, so be it. We have no other further comments pertaining to this Wiki entry and we will be glad this close the whole chapter of our differences. Nccwebmaster (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, although whether this is resolved to everyone's satisfaction will not be known until we hear from the other editors. I should also point out, because I haven't explicitly said this, that COI lays out specific circumstances in which you should be editing an article that you're this close to.  Outside of those circumstances, you should instead propose edits on the talk page and discuss them with other editors until a consensus is reached.  You should not generally be adding information directly to the article, and you should not generally be removing it except for violations of wp:blp.  If you feel that your suggestions are not receiving a fair and neutral evaluation you can ask for help on this notice board, or via dispute resolution.  All of this is detailed in the COI policy, and this is an explicit warning to follow it.  I'll also be watching the article for at least a short time after this to try to help things go smoothly between the two points of view.  Best wishes to all. Mishlai (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Clint Catalyst
More specific follow-up to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, but we seem to have some serious issues at Clint Catalyst. The entire history consists of everyone claiming User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (User:Bali ultimate too before, as this indicates) and now somewhat I have a COI, in part because we refuse to accept YouTube links and sites directly selling merchandise. The anthologies RFC isn't going so well either. So far, the WP:SPAs seem to be: We also have new user User:Jayson23 commenting very strangely, indicating he's at least a fan of some sort. I have been somewhat friendly and Hullaballo I admit needs to work on his civility, but there is seriously something going on here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Tjcrowley, who only seems to revert Hullaballoo because of the claimed COI
 * User:Granny Bebeb, who at least discusses thing
 * User:Thinkpiece admits a COI
 * User:Tallulah13

-- I do not necessarily believe that Ricky81682 has a COI - I've never accused him of that. He has been helpful and seems to know a lot about wiki guidelines {which I know practically nothing about} - But I do stick by my guns that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a COI.


 * user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz not once has the user contributed anything useful to the Clint Catalyst article {that I have seen}, all he does is delete things. You can see a history of this behavior on his talk page {it is not limited to Clint Catalyst edits either}. I am not the only one who feels that he has an obvious COI.

As I said on my own talk page, I am taking yet another break from this. It is more drama than I care to deal with. I only logged in today to try and help by replacing 2 notations that I {and others} believe are very acceptable. Thanks for the help. Tallulah13 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I don't think Ricky has a COI and I appreciate his tactful efforts, but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does seem to have a personal issue, not only with the Clint Catalyst article but also with pages related to various people within Catalyst's social circle, such as the band Scarling. The Clint Catalyst page needs cleanup, that's for sure, but I don't think deleting all of the informational content (as seems to be Hullaballoo's policy) and taunting other editors/content added by other editors is the answer. Additionally, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has added in derogatory accusations related to the subject of the article, such as claiming that he was "best known" for a brief cameo in a news story which was neither related to him nor any of his fields of work.

Also: the only Youtube link I posted was one that I had seen on Tallulah13's user page had been approved by Kubigula to be included due to the circumstances involved, so I assumed since it had been given approval, it should have been fine. The merchandise link I posted was to an item that was no longer for sale, so I figured it would be okay to show for factual purposes, but I suppose it was a primary source and therefore not the best thing to include after all (however, still not warranting the 'spammer' accusation which was subsequently thrown at me). Notice that I did not revert Ricky's edit. Granny Bebeb (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a brief look, and the article needs a lot of ref cleanup. Too much original research and primary sources. But I fail to see the COI. Rees11 (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence of COI, of course; the article subject's friends simply throw accusations around whenever they don't get what they want. Here, for example, Tallulah13 calls Orangemike "hateful" because he (successfully) contested some images she'd uploaded over copyright problems. It's basically a WP:OWN problem. The only COIs are with all those SPAs, who've blazed a conspicuous trail back to sites where it's easy to see they're associated with each other and with the article subject. For example, here's tallulah13's page in the buzznet Clint Catalyst Fans group (note that the first friend, "alcy," posts here as "Granny Bebeb); here's a message she posted urging her friends to manipulate imdb counts to improve Catalyst's "star-meter" rating there ; here's a post alcy made urging friends to help Catalyst win that "BigShotLive" contest the article talks about ; and here's alcy's livejournal page, with more Catalyst promotion, and, confirming that she's "Granny Bebeb," both an otherise inexplicable reference to "Bebeb" in the page title and a reference to Lucifer Luscious Violenoue, whose page Granny/alcy also edits. . I'm not interested in outing or embarassing these characters, so I'm not going to post links to anything further, but they aren't the only accounts that can be directly linked to the article's subject, and there's lots more stuff on several of them out there. (Once this all shakes out, it might also be a good idea for Tallulah13's user page history to be oversighted a bit, because she's left links revealing a great deal more than in is prudent. As she has elsewhere. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't having an interest in a subject and aiming to improve their page precisely the reason to make edits (as opposed to a negative obsession that has gone so far as to harass and track down editors of said subject's page)? Catalyst and I have never met. I am a fan of him, just as I am of LLV whom you have brought into this discussion - hence my research and posts you have discovered elsewhere. I've been trying to add constructive information to this article (among others) to keep it complete and relevant (not peacock, not a press release or advertisement), trying to learn the ropes and abide by policies to the best of my ability (though my questions generally go ignored), yet in return am greeted with condescending, bullying comments and have been stalked and outed by name (same with Tallulah13, who has left Wikipedia over this type of treatment - if it wasn't for Ricky's neutral presence during this debate, I'd probably be doing the same).


 * The repeated derogatory comments and personal attacks directed at myself, other constructive editors, and the subject of the article (as well as the subject's social circle), combined with your removal of information based on mere speculation/accusation (such as claiming that I'd "copied and pasted" book titles from a website in an effort to increase sales for a store I wasn't even aware existed) should speak for themselves, along with the inappropriate outing seen above. Granny Bebeb (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AMX International (software)
- Press-release type entry, sole contribution by user with the same name as the company. Hairhorn (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely a COI but the page isn't that promotional in my opinion and the company is apparently notable. I've removed the "mission statement" and moved it to AMX International (software). Some more clean up may be necessary and it definitely needs citations. Smartse (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Cytowic-related articles
, who self-identifies as Richard Cytowic, has been notified of the COI guideline but appears to be continuing to work on related articles in what appears (to me) to be a promotional effort. While they are clearly notable, there may be some issues with the content of their edits. They were previously indef blocked for some overt COI sockpuppetry, but the block was reduced since they may have not fully understood the rules around here. Can someone far more tactful than myself please take a look and/or keep an eye on this editor so they don't get themselves into more trouble? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've given Cytowic some advice on his talk page and he is cooperative and willing to learn from his previous mistakes. I have a one thing were a second opinion would be useful though: Richard Cytowic is an expert in Synesthesia and has added a good image to the article from his new book, Wednesday is Indigo Blue here: Synesthesia. I'm not sure whether it is appropriate however for the caption to mention this book that only came out this year. What do others think? Smartse (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The image is licensed under CC Attribution, so the copyright holder must be credited. Whether that means the book title must appear in the caption isn't clear. Rees11 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would assume it doesn't need to in the caption - if the author is releasing it through CC then it doesn't matter where it came from really does it? It's probably appropriate to include it in the image's info page but the caption seems unnecessary. Smartse (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite his assertion that he is only leaving suggestions on talk pages, he is actively editing an article about hsi book at User:Scarpy/Wednesday Is Indigo Blue, which he clearly understands is intended to replace the current article. I'm all for assuming good faith, but not when it is contradicted by an editor's words and actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that but it's only on Scarpy's user subpage at the moment, let's at least give Scarpy a chance to look at it. Cytowic also clearly wishes to learn how to edit articles properly it just may take some time. I've watchlisted Wednesday is Indigo Blue so will notice any additions of COI info. Smartse (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the assistance with this. I have been busy outside of Wikipedia and haven't been able to give this situation as much attention as I would like. I read the additions made to the article on my user page, and my impression was that, while the content was well-written, it was more about Synesthesia than it was about the book and could be moved to one of the Synesthesia articles.


 * The way I envision the re-write is to have it based on the reviews of the book. This is my first time writing and article on a book, I feel like I should finish reading it first and I still need to review the book guidelines (e.g. just poking around now I found WikiProject_Books, WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article, Naming_conventions_(books) and I'm sure there's more). -- Scarpy (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon
Could some uninvolved editors take a look at Electronic voice phenomenon? The article has been pretty stable for a while but has had POV and accuracy tags but little if any discussion on the talk page why those tags should be there. When I removed them, they have been repeatedly restored by an editor who is the head of an organization advocating the topic and who is referenced in the article. This editor has long insisted that the article should conform to his particular POV - his editing of the article itself is minimal at this point, but it's hard for me to take the tags seriously and not get the impression that they are merely being used as a big "DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ IN THIS ARTICLE" tag (since he can't get the article to his preferred state). Particularly when the editor states on his user page that his goal is to discredit Wikipedia. Input from fresh editors would be appreciated. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Coupled with the off-wiki statements, I think there's a clear COI in the aim to make the Wikipedia article reflect the views of the organisation. Looking at Talk page activity too - which includes repeated canvassing of this off-wiki agenda , it looks like a case of Civil POV pushing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree on the Civil POV. At least, unlike many fringe/pseudo science articles, there is the civil part. As far as the tags go, Mr Butler was correct in that the tags stated there was a dispute, with not much discussion on the talk page. This now appears to have been resolved on the talk page. I suspect this is now more appropriate for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (where a 1-line comment has been filed today), as the COI piece really only enters into the picture if his edits serve to benefit his organization, and not just his/their views on EVP. Arakunem Talk 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Polynesian Adventure Tours

 * - Editor has disclosed in the talk page of Polynesian Adventure Tours that he is an employee of the company, has removed the non-notable tag and is now arguing to include tour route information and other blatant advertising in the article. Could non-involved editor(s) take a look here? Brianhe (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction, I think I mis-read "tour" for "our" in the talk page; it's not clear what if any relationship Glensan has to the company. Still, his singular devotion to this article and advertising-like content in it is troubling. Brianhe (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented on the talk page of the article. Essentially, I'm of the opinion that a couple of example destination mentions in the opening paragraph are ok to flesh out the scope of the company, but the section dedicated to their destinations crossed the "Travel Brochure" line. Arakunem Talk 16:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this ... I am new to Wiki and did not know all the rules. I do understand and respect the importance of keeping the integrity of Wikipedia articles. I am an employee of the company - and the only reason I decided to contribute is that I stumbled upon the page and saw that it was marked for deletion. I tried to keep my contribution as neutral as possible and simply state facts about the company. Glensan (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewelry Television

 * - New user Jtvupdates only seems to be adding in reports of lawsuits against Jewelry Television. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The username certainly suggests a Single-Purpose account. As long as the lawsuit mentions are cited and are not given undue weight in the article (both of which are currently true), though, then it should be ok for them to remain. Arakunem Talk 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing on 42 Entertainment


There seems to be an attempt by a user at IP 71.249.244.191 to whitewash the article for company 42 Entertainment. There have been two edits in the past five days in which historical information (sourced) about the company is being removed without explanation and without discussion on the article's talk page. Despite an undo of this person's revisions on the 6th, they were back at it again today. This follows a series of suspicious edits by user Judefrancis in April which prompted me to contact a Wikipedia editor through the #help chat channel. According to Domain Tools the IP 71.249.244.191 resolves to mail.digennarony.com, where digennarony.com is the web site for Digennaro Communications, who are listed as PR Representation at the 42 Entertainment web site. In my opinion, this constitutes a clear COI and I would appreciate any help you may offer in this regard. Argguy (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Argguy is correct, 71.249 removed a lot of history twice: . I've warned them appropriately for removal of content. Judefrancis has then changed the supposed date of when the company founded:  which contradicts information removed in the history. Seeming as this is not the first occurence I have also warned them. This user also made one edit: .Smartse (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Judefrancis has also extensively edited Steve Peters (game designer). I did a little cleanup and tagging. Drawn Some (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A new user has now appeared and reverted the article back to a version similar to Judefrancis's. They have accused  of being a former employee and therefore having a COI - I see no evidence to suggest this, although Argguy does seem to be a single purpose account. I've reverted it back to the previous version to keep the historical details. Smartse (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added ARGgirl to the header of this report. Anyone who has time to follow this up: be sure all the named editors are given a pointer to the discussion here. If they continue to make peculiar edits after being given a chance to respond, sanctions may be considered. Only ARGgirl and the IP seem to be currently active. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not under the employ of 42 Entertainment, nor have I ever been. I have responded to the accusation of the talk page.  If any of the editors looking into this matter need to verify my non-involvement with the company, they are free to contact me. Argguy (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you explain whatever your motivation is if that is possible and you are willing? These situations can be difficult to untangle. A competitor can be considered to have a conflict of interest, for instance. Drawn Some (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'm not a competitor, as my profession is in the field of education.  My motivation is only to make sure that articles on Wikipedia in relation to alternate reality games are as accurate and factual as possible.  I have been an active part of the ARG community for eight years now and have pointed people towards the articles for 42 Entertainment and alternate reality games when they want to know more about the history of the genre.  If the article for 42 Entertainment is missing historical information, then it loses effectiveness in providing an accurate snapshot of that company through time.  To be frank, it appears that 42 Entertainment has directed its public relations company to remove references to Elan Lee, Sean Stewart and Jim Stewartson (three of the company's founding members), although I can only speculate on the reasons for that.  I can cite the Wikipedia article for Bungie in how a Wikipedia article currently includes references to former employees.  As an aside, I have nothing but respect for the work done by 42 Entertainment and have enjoyed playing many of their projects. Argguy (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ARGgirl has again removed history citing that it is based on "an old webpage" and will not enter into dialogue. I've reverted it and again asked for them to engage in dialogue before removing content. Smartse (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that Rees11 has suggested that archived web sites aren't the best references in the world on the 42 Entertainment discussion page and agree wholeheartedly. As an editor who has spent some time looking for references, I'm hopeful that other editors will take the time to find these references as well.  Great suggestion, Rees11. Argguy (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Archived pages make great references, there is even a way to archive current pages here if they are being used as references. The primary problem is that the page is from the company's website which makes it a primary source, see WP:RS.  It's always better to use independent reliable sources.  The company could put on the website that Santa Claus is the president and that it was founded in 1776 by George Washington on leave from the army. Drawn Some (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ARGgirl has removed the content yet again. It was reverted by someone else. Looking at the history of removal of the history section by different users does anyone think that a sockpuppet investigation may be required? It seems more than coincidental that the same content is being removed by three different editors in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks that way to me. ARGgirl's account was set up just after the COI notice, and has been used only to edit 42 Entertainment. Rees11 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a report here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Judefrancis Smartse (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ARGgirl and 42PR has been blocked indefinitely and the IP has been blocked for a week for meat/sock puppetry. Judefrancis hasn't been. As new references have been added to further clarify the historical information I think that this case is probably resolved for the moment. If further removal occurs the case should be reopened. Smartse (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Akwilks

 * - Akwilks' only purpose for being on Wikipedia seems to be to provide links to and argue in favor of his own personal "solutions" to old events, such as who was responsible for the 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders and how to solve a code related to the Zodiac Killer -- and he blames both on Theodore Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber). That cluster of otherwise unrelated articles seems to be his sole focus of attention. Links are to a personal website with messageboard posts written by one "AK Wilks". Multiple editors have tried to explain policy to him. DreamGuy (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dovale and Benny Brunner


User:Dovale keeps adding/edit warring to include unsourced and unnotable material about a subject whose notability is questionable to begin with. (information stricken by Mishlai) I warned the editor about the COI, but he has returned immediately and continued the same behavior. i do not want to violate WP:OUTING so i am unsure how to proceed. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not the most conclusive proof but I agree that it does seem fairly likely. I've found a few references for some of the films but I think that a simple list will suffice rather than a full breakdown of each film as was present before. I'll keep an eye on the article. Smartse (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that what is posted here may already constitute an outing. Perhaps the whole thing should be removed?  It is best to address the matter from a standpoint of NPOV without raising COI concerns when someone is not out. From wp:coi - "COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing." Mishlai (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * well, something should be done. (information stricken by Mishlai) and the editor so far refuses to communicate about anything. something needs to be done. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored portions of the old conversation related to this specific COI, and moved the general questions to the talk page as suggested. I've self reverted at Dovale's talk page so the warnings are back in place.

It seems probable that there is a real COI concern here. Even absent a COI this editor is adding large swathes of information that are unsourced or very weakly sourced about a subject of questionable notability, and that needs to be discussed (elsewhere). Despite some back and forth in the article, there is no discussion on the article's talk page whatsoever, which is problematic in it's own right. Thanks to all involved for your patience concerning my disruption of this subsection. Mishlai (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I think this issue is resolved for the moment - the information has been removed and replaced with cited information. Smartse (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Cobonpue
Copied from the WP:COIN Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)



i have seen that the page i have created has a conflict of interest tag on it. i would really like to have it removed as the page i have made regarding Kenneth Cobonpue is purely encyclopedic and for the use of the general public's knowledge. If there is anything i can do please do instruct me on how i can get this tag removed. Thank you and good day.

Kenneth Cobonpue (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The macro is there because you a both a major contributor and the subject of the article. Also problematic is that all of the references are print and not easily checkable online publications. The the article has evolved and most of the work is not your own, the macro may get removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As Stuart has pointed out the COI message is there because the page seems to be an autobiography. Autobiographies are inappropriate for wikipedia. See WP:AUTO. If you can provide inline citations for the claims made then the COI may be removed. At the moment the article reads far too much like a CV/resume and is like an advert. Please feel free to ask if you would like any help improving it. Smartse (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to to my comments above, if you're looking for a good example of how to avoid the COI, I recommend looking at Jimmy Wales. Just about every claim has a footnote citing a source and most sources are online source. I suggest that you lift formatting and macros for how to do this straight from that page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the COI tag - the editor signed on the talk page as "Jose Paolo Konst" and some googling reveals far more spectacular claims could be made (that he designed something for Smartse (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Juval Aviv

 * - has literally no other edits on Wikipedia, except to the article on Juval Aviv.  Who is Juval Aviv?  Well, he bills himself as a terrorism expert; whether his credentials are real or fictional is a subject of great debate, but you wouldn't know that if Spbraswell had his way, since he keeps removing anything that questions Aviv's credentials, calling it "factual errors" and "incorrect information" and claiming that he has the right to remove it when it "cite[s] articles that [are] also factually incorrect" (essentially claiming that his assessment of what is "correct" outweighs WP:RS.)  Juval Aviv is also the head of the security firm Interfor, which just happens to employ Stephen Braswell as its public-relations director.  I wonder if Stephen Braswell's middle initial is P. =P -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-10-16/news/secret-agent-schmuck/full was removed seems particularly relevant to this. If has evidence that the claims made by the village Voice are wrong, let references to that evidence be produced. If not, let the referenced criticism stand. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned it up to remove all the blatant PR/advertising in the article. I don't think I removed anything that I shouldn't have. Smartse (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

67.137.28.206 and International Armoring Corporation and Armormax
's edits seem to be all promoting this corporation and their product. The two articles have obviously been created/edited by editors with an interest in the company as they read like advertising copy. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I started to cut out the ad copy but realised if I did there wouldn't be any article left, so I just added an advert template. Still, if there is COI, it's not evident. Suggest pursuing this as NPOV. Rees11 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, this is borderline db-spam. Rees11 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Armormax has been speedy deleted as db-spam. Rees11 (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The edits by this particular IP user actually seem pretty innocuous to me. The user who seems to be responsible for most of the spam is, and it seems to be a single-purpose account, but I see no other evidence of COI. Should we mark this "resolved?" Rees11 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:133tsam
This user's edits have been solely towards the articles Devolution Novel and Devolution Franchise. A page the user made for Andrew Lisle, listed in these articles as the creator of the franchise/graphic novel was speedily deleted. In my opinion, there is a high chance that this user has serious COI issues towards advancing this franchise. TheLetterM (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Both articles have been PRODd and seconded. Smartse (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nekromantix


- is, or claims to be, Kim Nekroman of the band Nekromantix. He's been editing the band article heavily of late and I've had some semi-heated discussion with him. A similar thing happened 2 years ago. For the older discussions see here, and for the current one see here. It started out with him claiming that some of the article's information (which was referenced both to secondary sources & his own band's myspace) was incorrect. Now it's graduated into bigger problems, like when he replaced the entire lead with a cut-n-paste copyvio from Yahoo (which in turn is copying from Allmusic) which read like a complete puff piece. Anything he dislikes he claims is "inaccurate" or that the source is unreliable, and he constantly insists that the only truly reliable sources are the band's website & myspace. I've asked for help at the Music and Musicians projects but haven't gotten much, so I thought it worth reporting. He is also editing his own biography article and HorrorPops, another of his bands. IllaZilla (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by KimNekroman (& discussion)
- Has been using subjective wording that is not in the spirit and ethics of Wikipedia. I have only been insisting her to use wording that doesn't leave doubt about what is being meant. IllaZilla seems to be misunderstanding the sources she is refering to and have a problem with me making sure that the article remains in a trustworthy enclypedia state. As it appears from the edits and discussions I have been working with IllaZilla but made sure that untrue information has been edited. And yes Kim Nekroman and HorrorPops articles has been edited naturally because some of the same errors are in those articles also. --KimNekroman (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem working towards compromise, but I believe that the talk page discussions illustrate some areas where we fundamentally disagree on the accuracy of wording, use of sources, etc., and I believe that a conflict of interest may be influencing some of your edits in that regard. For the record I have not contributed significantly to either the Kim Nekroman or HorrorPops articles (except for reverting a vandalism on HorroPops and removing a bit of copyvio from Kim Nekroman), so any errors in those articles are not coming from me. Oh, and I'm a "he" incidentally. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And without going through everything again, there are no signs of "conflict of interest", from my side, whatsoever. You've eventually accepted the facts after I forced you to do research and only thing left is you insisting on putting an instrument in a category where it doesn't belong. I even tried to work on a compromise by calling it an upright bass. It is not a double bass it's a Coffin Bass. As the archives reveal you also accepted that my edits to incorrect artist naming was indeed justified, proved and well referenced. You have to remember that you are not capable of acting as a moderator on Wikipedia and that we all are contributers. You must understand that your obviously biased editing notes makes you a less serious Wikipedian. --KimNekroman (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A Balalaika is a similar example of a bass instrument that falls under its own category. In this Wikipedia article there is NO mention of the word double bass but only Contrabass. If you look up Contrabass you'll will find more information on how to classify the instrument depending on tuning, size etc. In other words the Double bass article is not really correct but I have no time to start that argument and will refer to the Wikipedia articles that are correct.
 * To sum that up, only correct term when talking about a Balalaika Bass would be: Balalaika, Balalaika Bass or Blalaika Contrabass (according to Wikipedia). I therefor see no justification for calling the Coffin Bass for what it is: A bass or (which will be the correct term) A Coffin Bass. --KimNekroman (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Kim, please read my below comments. With reference to the Coffin Bass it would seem as though this is a neologism and should therefore be avoided (WP:NEO). If I read Coffin Bass in an article I'd not have any idea what it is but I understand Double bass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read my above post you would say the same about the Balalaika. Go to Contrabass and they'll explain why its NOT a Double bass. The compromise here would be Contrabass and NOT Double bass. The classification is based on tuning factors rather than the assumtion that it "kinda look like.." fact. Just because you dress up a soccermoms van doesn't make it a racing car. --KimNekroman (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From Contrabass (at the very top) "For the string instrument sometimes referred to as contrabass, see double bass". The Balalaika is from the "Late 18th to early 19th centuries" and appears to have been widely used in Ukraine at the time. I've changed the opener line to: ""coffinbass", a very deep double bass" which I think is easier for the average person to understand. Note that very deep is a link to contrabass. --Smartse (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, Nekroman, I have not "eventually accepted the facts after [you] forced [me] to do research"; I have decided to back off from the article a bit while this conflict of interest situation is worked out and other editors offer their suggestions. Just because I have not reverted all of your edits in the last day does not mean that I have "accepted the facts" as you present them. I still disagree with you on several key points, mainly your insistence that nearly every source outside the band's own websites is unreliable and that double bass should not be mentioned in connection with the coffin bass. I'm quite grateful to Smartse for digging up more secondary sources, and I hope that we can use these to continue improving the article. I agree with Smartse that since you have a conflict of interest here, the best course of action is for you to bring any concerns you have up on the respective articles' talk pages and allow Wikipedia's editors to examine and correct them. Unless there is content that blatantly violates our policy on biographies of living persons, then you should not take it upon yourself to commandeer the articles and change everything that you don't agree with. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a general website, and thus the standard for inclusion of information is verifiability, not truth. If you see factual errors that are not blatantly libelous, then the best way to deal with them is to discuss the issue, offer alternative reliable sources, and help the article's editors reach consensus on how to fix it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was refering to the now 2 year old dispute you and I had. all the sources you are refering to is copies of rewritten interviews which hardly makes them reliable. I will indeed take it upon myself to change name errors that has let to problems. This has NOTHING to do with me agreeing or disagreeing but the harm that such negligence can and have caused. --KimNekroman (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you tell us specifically which name errors you mean, and how they have "led to problems"? Your own myspace post gives most of the names, and says that "Gaarde" is your songwriting pseudonym. You have since said that in fact "Gaarde" is a pseudonym used by multiple people for songwriting credit. Could you clarify this? Would it be inaccurate to say in the article that you (Kim Nekroman) are "credited on songwriting as 'Gaarde? The reason I ask for clarification on this is because a reader who looks at the album articles will see "Gaarde" as the songwriter, and will naturally be curious who Gaarde is since it is not the name of any of the persons in the "Personnel" section (the band members). It is therefore helpful to our readers to clarify the meaning of the name Gaarde. If it's your pseudonym, then I think it's pertinent to say so. If it's also used by other people, or is a collective pseudonym used by yourself and others as a single credit, then that makes things even more confusing and more pertinent to explain to our readers. Obviously you have this information, and can choose whether or not to share it with us here, but ultimately for us to include it properly in the articles we must have a reliable, published source to cite. The ultimate goal here is simply accuracy. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Kim, as I've already explained they need to be reliable sources and I can't see any reason why these sources would not be. Please try and concentrate on moving this forward rather than looking backwards. --Smartse (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IllaZilla, that would be original research. --Smartse (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting original research, I'm asking him for clarification so that we can get to the root of the problems. If he can clear this up, then maybe we can locate some reliable sources to verify what he has to say. But if all we have to go on is that "Gaarde is a name used by multiple people for songwriting credit" then we don't really have much to go on in our searches. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

←You are asking me to reveal personal information about third party if I should answer that fully. When a synonym is used by more than one person it needs to be explain in full and become none relevant for the article because as you say it becomes confusing. Some random person faulty wrote that Kim Nekroman's real name is "Dan Gaarde" which has resulted in official investigations by IRS and has become a nuisance. Interviewers retract their info from WP and sources that originally got info from WP. An evil circle that twist the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimNekroman (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to reveal personal information about anyone, I'm merely asking you for clarification. You should be able to answer a couple of questions without revealing anyone's personal information: Is "Gaarde" your songwriting pseudonym, or is it shared with other persons as well? If the latter is the case, it can obviously be confusing to readers so I would appreciate any futher details that you are at liberty to provide. Is it accurate to say that you are credited on your albums as "Gaarde" for songwriting purposes? It's unfortunate that the Dan Gaarde issue has caused you some nuisance, but as I've mentioned before it was not my doing and is an unfortunate consequence of Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It appears to have been put in the article by User:Inanechild in November 2004, and remained there until August 2006 when it was removed by an anonymous editor. The EU Jacksonville article mentioning it was published in April 2007. Whether they got that information from Wikipedia or not is uncertain, though certainly a possibility. I came across the EU Jacksonville article in July 2007 while searching for sources to reference the Nekromantix Wikipedia article. I apologize if it was incorrect, but I was merely utilizing what sources I could find. Any information that you feel comfortable sharing would help to point us in the right direction and ultimately help the article to be more accurate. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gaarde is a pseudonym used by me and other persons. KimNekroman (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Do you use it separataly, or does it refer to a songwriting team? In other words, if song A on a Nekromantix album and song B on a HorrorPops album are both credited to Gaarde, could they have been written by 2 different people? Or does it always mean that you & the other persons wrote the songs together as a group effort? Are there other albums besides those by Nekromantix and HorrorPops on which I might find it used? I ask because the use of the pseudonym on various albums by different acts might be something worth mentioning in one or more of these articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It can be any combination, involving up to 3 different persons including myself. Reason being that only I and involved persons know for reasons I obviously will not publish. So yes song A and Song B can be written by 2 different people, which is why it is incorrect to use the wording I deleted in the article. That is why I called it "assumption". There is a reason why a pseudonym is used. KimNekroman (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, that makes sense. Surely you can see, though, how this made it seem like it only referred to you, or at least didn't suggest that it referred to anyone else as well. Hence the confusion; I was using your FAQ as the source for that info, and it only said that Gaarde referred to yourself. Might I suggest that, if you're updating http://www.nekromantix.com/ as you've indicated (you've mentioned that it's "under construction"), that you add an FAQ section and mention that the pseudonym refers to a songwriting team that includes yourself and others? That would be something we could cite (though we are looking for secondary sources, a primary source in this case would be better than none at all). --IllaZilla (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * upon your request I rephrased the Blog. I wont go into more details about the pseudonym as it is not for the public to know. It is as personal as other info I wont publish such as my SSN. There is a limit to what can be accessed, wont you agree? As for the website we are currently in court and again, private information that is not for the public eye. (maybe I can get some expert legal advice by WebHamster LOL) KimNekroman (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I obviously can't ask you to release any personal or professional info that you don't want to. As far as the website, I hope things work out. From Wikipedia's standpoint we're always looking for sources of higher caliber, and with bands an official website is almost always considered higher caliber than a myspace. Among the reasons are that official sites can contain much more useful material than a myspace can, and because blogs are considered poor sources of info compared to official news posts or press releases (and of course that news being re-published by a secondary source is always even better). In fact myspace blogs used to be so often abused on Wikipedia as sources of pseudo-"I heard it on the internets" type of info that nowadays you can't even link directly to a blog post in a citation; it sets off a flag that automatically reverts it. Another reason is that blogs can be altered/deleted/etc., so they're just not considered as reliable as other sources of info. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is interesting considering 80% of bands and musicians use myspace as their primary website nowadays. Myspace can contain as much info as you wanna put there and there is no domain fee to be paid, which is attractive for many. A website information can be altered/deleted/etc just as easily as blogs can. The advantage of using blogs and bulletins is you reach your target right away and dont have to wait for people to log on to your website. Maybe it's time for WP to realize that things has changed and will cont. to do so.
 * I understand exactly where problems of doubt can arise but I certainly question anything not coming from the primary source as I personally see it done wrong all the time from various ref's. And believe me, I'm not the only one. KimNekroman (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not the venue for your flawed argument. I suggest you go to the source and patiently explain to the many editors who have achieved consensus for the current status quo as to what is considered reliable and what isn't. I'm sure they'll be mightily impressed with your cast iron logic. --Web H amster  10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But it is the venue for your juvinile outbursts, is that what you are trying to tell me? Stop whining because I don't bite your bait. Or does it really hurt you that I don't give a fish and chips about what you have to say? You sure act narrowminded for someone who doesn't believe in religion. If you want a flabbermouth contest with me I suggest we do it in another forum. KimNekroman (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

←So by that I take it you won't be explaining to the editors at WP:RS why your idea for the definition of a reliable source is better than theirs? --Web H amster  11:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What part of "goodnight" don't you understand? KimNekroman (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What part of "parochial" don't you understand? It's just past noon here. Anyway, enough pandering to your attention-seeking. I'm off to edit a wide variety of articles. May I suggest you do the same... unless of course your only interest here is band promotion and not Wikipedia improvement. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  11:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * stop..think..speak.... if you cared to read my comment in the round up section you'll find that I already answered that question before you asking it. noon eh, time for mom to shove that pacifier right back in your mouth for your noon nap. kiss kiss KimNekroman (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another page you should look at WP:NPA. And thank you once again for proving my points over and over again. It's so edifying. So, back to business, have you decided to take onboard the advice you have been given and do you agree to step back from any 'controversial' edits to articles whose subjects you are involved with? Of course you are quite free to edit any other sort of article in any way you like, within the rules of course. This is what is supposed to be achieved here at COIN, so it would be helpful to all involved to know what you intend to do with regard to this matter. Sparkling as your repartee is it's about time we returned to the matter at hand. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  11:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh boy.....you aren't very bright are you Hamster? KimNekroman (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Smartse (& discussion)
Kim, at the moment none of the three articles have any reliable sources for the information on them. IllaZilla is correct to challenge and change any information on the pages that is not cited from a reliable source. Obviously from your informed position (assuming you are indeed Kim Nekroman) you are privy to a lot of information on the articles that is not verifiable. With your conflicted position I would advise that if you find factual errors in the articles you comment on the talk page so that other editors can take action to correct them. You should refrain from adding any material to the pages too as there is an obvious conflict of interest.

With regards to the current disagreement over how to use sources and wording etc. I think that you should let IllaZilla add what they see fit from reliable sources. Unfortunately the band's myspace page will not count under this. A quick google news search reveals many reliable sources that could be used on Nekromantix however so I would advise trying to create an article around these. Unless unsourced or libellous information is added then I'm afraid you can't remove it. I hope this helps. --Smartse (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that IllaZilla should be allowed to add from sources you just said yourself was all unreliable? I dont think so, we are drifting into an "infringement and violating personal rights-zone" here as it is illegal to publish incorrect information. --KimNekroman (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * RE the comment above, I've said that none of the current sources are reliable. This is the nearest but it is an interview with Kim Nekroman and therefore does not represent a neutral point of view. Nekromantix needs new reliable sources to use as the basis for the article. Here are some examples:      --Smartse (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 out of the five ref examples has errors such as album title wrong, wrong song titles and other wrong info which is clashing with easily accessable info. Is it weird that I find such sources unreliable? Does that not make you question things? If I were to edit a WP article about whatever band wouldn't it be expected of me to make sure I cross-check info or is it cool to just publish it?
 * PS: Ironically "Stand up Bass" "Upright Bass", "Slap Bass" and absolutely no mention of Double bass in those ref's ;) KimNekroman (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by WebHamster (& discussion)
Firstly it's not "illegal" to publish incorrect information, if it was then most newspapers worldwide would have been closed down by the police and secondly you are getting close to a legal threat here. Wikipedia is not necessarily about what is true, it's about what can be verified. PS can you please start putting some indents here so this thread can be more legible than it is? --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is indeed "illegal" and newspapers pay the price pay the price in court every single day. Yes indeed Wikipedia is about what can be verified only problem I have is that I've seen no verified material from IllaZilla. All my verified objective info has been accepted by IllaZilla and this looks like a subject of subjective and biased views from everybody else than the "conflict of interest party". As for the bass discussion I've refered to Wikipedias own article Contrabass yet you dont agree? --KimNekroman (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your lack of legal knowledge is impressive. Illegal means to break criminal law, the term you are after is "unlawful". Even so it is not unlawful to publish incorrect facts, it's only unlawful to publish libellous or defamatory material. All of which is inconsequential and irrelevant. WP has established guidelines for what are permissible sources and in most circumstances primary sources from a MySpace website are NOT acceptable or considered reliable except on the odd occasion when they refer to specific things that are internal to the band, e.g. it's permissible to use a band ref to say Bass player B took over from Bass player A on a certain date. What isn't acceptable is to use a Band/MySpace reference to say that they performed a one-off acoustic set on MTV.


 * As regards the bass argument, my own view on it is that as the instrument in question is a custom-built and designed instrument it's neither a double bass nor a contrabass. It's a coffin with 4 strings that makes a sound similar to an upright bass. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  23:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what "illegal" means, I also know what "violating infringement rights" is. All which is under criminal law (ps look it up on Wikipedia). Your "bass player B..." hardly has any relevance here does it? IllaZilla has made assumptions in the past and does it still, he even admit to that if you look at archives. As of right now I have no problem with the article, even though its far from being completed. IllaZilla wisely removed and deleted his subjective views and untrue facts. Yet had a problem with the bass categorization. Your view on the bass would put it in exactly the category I did (which wasn't good enough for IllaZilla so I came up with the Contabass compromise and would think: "end of discussion". Instead I am getting free online legal advice from someone whom's legal knowledge is less than impressive. So far nothing has come up on here that justifies IllaZilla "conflict of interest" dispute. Other than being hurt by being court in unsuitable edit notes --KimNekroman (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ho-hum, another muso who thinks he's up on the law. I've only just come into this conversation and already I can see where the problem lies. Someone round here is not accepting advice from people who know better than they do, at least with regard to WP conventions and rules. This situation is exactly why it's not recommended that someone with such close ties to an article's subject does any writing on the article. You are so full of what you want to appear that you can't see what is allowed to appear. Please do not use your own website as a reference, can we get that sorted finally? The experienced editors here are using the term "reliable" in the Wikipedia sense not in the dictionary sense. Incidentally, before you go on with any further demonstrations of your legal knowledge perhaps you should check what you've actually written. "Violating infringement rights" means that someone is violating your right to be infringed upon. The expression I'm sure you meant to use relates to copyright not to whether published information is correct or not. May I suggest that you leave the wordsmithing to us and we'll leave the musicianship to you? I'd also recommend that you leave the legal motif well alone as all you will do is succeed in getting yourself blocked. Legal threats round here are a big no-no! --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem you seem to be having here is your understanding of how we use the term "reliable" round here. "Reliable" doesn't necessarily relate to the words themselves, it relates to the people who are writing them. Their reliability is based on their level of independence and how reputable they are in their own realm. If the London Times writes an interview that is full of incorrect facts they are still deemed to be a reliable source as they are noteworthy in their own field and perhaps more importantly they are independent of the subject of the article. Your website is not classed as being reliable as it is written by yourselves, you could and probably are writing it in a way that best serves your own interests. This is normal and acceptable for anything other than an encyclopaedic reference because there is no independent overseeing of anything you write on your own website. As has been explained to you several times now, WP isn't about truth, it isn't a primary source, it's a collection of information garnered from 3rd party information sources. If you wish to have a press release for an article then I suggest you send it to Allmusic where it is appropriate. WP is not here for your or your band's benefit, it isn't here as an avenue to promote your band, it isn't a fansite to add to your list of your online information founts. Now please stand back from the article. Monitor it by all means and if there are any glaring errors then notify us on the talk page and we'll sort it. We'll do that partly from information from your good self and partly from other sources that corroborate what you say. What won't happen though is that you can put what you like in the article and have us accept that it is true, correct and impartial until it can be substantiated from additional 3rd party, reliable sources. By all means edit the article to improve grammar and correct syntax errors, i.e. non-controversial edits, anything else please bring it up on the talk page. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  00:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hamster, I appreciate the help, but let's try to keep things civil. While I'm still at odds with Nekroman on some of the issues under discussion (hence why I started this notice), being sarcastic and nitpicking about his grammar/word usage is likely to only agitate him, and there's been enough of that already. Obviously he has reasons to be concerned about what is printed about him and his bands, and obviously we have encyclopedia standards to maintain as well, but the path I can see towards a satisfactory resolution requires us (Wikipedians) to remain polite and professional. I know I've been guilty of some of the same over the course of these discussions, but there's really nothing to be gained here by comments like "leave the wordsmithing to us and we'll leave the musicianship to you". It can only aggravate the situation. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WebHamster when you are done with showing off muscles and shoving your legal knowledge down our throats, is there then anything relevant to this debate you wanna add? Ho-hum we have another case of somebody that wanna see himself in writing rather than contribute. My I suggest that you learn what you are talking about before doing so? Being blocked eh? haha you should concentrate on the issue instead of threatening me; There is NO reliable sources so far used by IllaZilla period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimNekroman (talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with the understanding of the term "reliable". What do you base that comment on? You use alot of words yet you say absolutely nothing. I was the one saying that the other part did not use reliable sources. Others here agree's that those sources are unreliable according to WP. Yet you seem to have a problem with me because I know what I am talking about! Allmusic already are using an interview written by the same person and that is not acknowledged as reliable on one site but on another? I think we established that you contradict yourself. --KimNekroman (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "There is NO reliable sources so far used by IllaZilla period!" Now, see, that's just flat-out untrue. All 8 of the sources currently cited in the article were added by yours truly. While they are not the highest caliber sources one could hope for, it is patently false to say that they are all completely unreliable. 2 of them are your very own myspace posts. Are you saying that you are an unreliable source? 3 more are from punknews.org and another is from the OC Register. Are you calling them unreliable? Since it's the other 2 that you seem to have the most problem with, let's look at those. What is so unreliable about the Starkult and EU Jacksonville sources? They both seem to be written mainly around interview with you. Are you saying that they're twisting your words and misrepresenting facts? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IllaZilla, firstly I'm not here to help you or anyone else, secondly you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, so sometimes you have to smack the beast on the arse. As for levels of agitation, frankly I have no interest or care as to how agitated anyone gets. I don't do polite, and until someone starts to pay me here I don't do professional. What I do do is say things as they are. It's pretty apparent that this is a perfect example of why the CoI guidelines are in place. KN is determined to get his way and can't understand why that isn't happened. As such his belligerence is overriding his commonsense. It's also apparent that he isn't listening. Sometimes that sort of response needs a "smack on the arse" to get them to the right place. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  00:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nekroman, you do have a problem understanding it, this is demonstrated both by your behaviour, your attitude and your words, if you did understand it you wouldn't be insisting that your website is the best source. Generally speaking Allmusic is not a reliable source as it's info is user supplied. Anyone can fill in a form on the site and add information to any of their articles, albeit via their staff first. Also they accept press releases from the bands/musicians as verbatim. This being the case they are neither truly independent nor reliable because their information is not overseen. So no I'm not contradicting myself, remember I did say it was the writer/publisher that is considered to be reliable, not the work itself. So long as the info doesn't come from a primary source, a forum or a blog and does come from an established publication that has a good reputation then it's safe to say that it's a reliable source. Either way there's nothing to stop you asking on the talk page whether any particular source is considered to be reliable. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  00:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not threatening you as I don't have the ability to block you. What I am doing is pointing out that the road you seem to want to go down that is paved with veiled legal threats is a very bad one. The instant you start making those sort of remonstrations the likelihood is that you would be blocked by an admin for making legal threats. It's a very simple concept. Do not make legal threats, do not even imply them. That sort of thing is frowned on greatly round here and can get you or anyone else blocked. It's not a threat, it's a fact as well as being a pointer as to which road to not go down. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  00:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * all the info you are refering to comes from interviews with add errors retracted from WP. Every piece of info comes from the primary source to begin with then published rewritten by a writer, just to be copied from site to site. Not only are you a legal expert and a media proffessor so eventually you'll contribute to this. Both IllaZilla and Smartse seems to be interested in everybody finding a solution that makes everybody happy and I suggest you do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimNekroman (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You just keep on contraticting yourself. Stop and think. Don't tell me what to do and not to do. Don't teach me about what is "frowned on greatly round here..", infact don't try to teach me anything. --KimNekroman (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

←Thank you for proving my point. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to make anyone happy. I'm here to help make the encyclopaedia factual and to make sure that articles stay within the rules, your happiness is totally irrelevant as to why this article is at the CoI noticeboard. It's up to you whether you follow the rules or not, whether it makes you happy is unimportant. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, and your point with relevance for this article is..? --KimNekroman (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is with relevance to why you're here at WP:COIN. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * why dont you start contributing to making the "encyclopaedia" factual and you will make people happy. Honestly you have proved a true master in wordsplitting and to avoid the subject. What part of making people happy when "the encyclopaedia is factual and articles stay within the rules" dont you understand? throw away the keyboard armor and get to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimNekroman (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * my oh my if pretending to be the WP:COIN police, floats your boat LOL --KimNekroman (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I prefer to be called the grammar police. "Synonym" was used incorrectly in a previous post of yours, it should have been "pseudonym". FYI. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  01:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * YAWN if you get your kicks out of making yourself look cool on behalf of somebody with another native language than english, be my guest. I guess there is no hope of you ever contributing anything to this at all? --KimNekroman (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than the explanations of the rules you aren't interested in following, the advice you aren't accepting, the explanation of bad grammar you aren't accepting, no not a lot really. Here's some more advice for you not to follow, perhaps if you were to accept that you do indeed have a conflict of interest that is interfering with how the article is being written and that your desire to get what you want into the article is actually interfering with the process then perhaps this discussion could lead somewhere. You have 3 experienced editors all trying to point you in the right direction, but for some strange reason you're the one telling them how you want it done and not listening to anyone. I'd say that's a perfect example of CoI at play. The problem is that in actual fact it isn't us 3 that you have to convince, it's the admins who are reading this and who are not saying anything. Have a nice day. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  01:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please refactor the above, I can't parse any of it and make sense from it. When I can understand it I'll happily respond. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  01:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've refactored the entire conversation because it had become so discombobulated as to be unintelligible. I hope this helps it to make more sense, but apologize if any comments seem out of place. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gosh you must have some personal issues Hamster. Your "online-tough-guy" personality is stunning and your pathetic insults hilarious.


 * I must admit that I really didn't read your comments after chewing through your first one. I do follow the rules hence me being on CoI. I am not here to promote myself (unlike you I don't really have to) but merely to make sure facts are straight. And I do take advice and have been listening and weighing both IllaZilla's and Smarte's inputs, because unlike you they are obviously serious Wikipedian's, that find satisfaction is solving problems through communication. I even learned that it is possible to archive compromise (in regard to the bass issue) and Smartse sorted that out. I'm happy to see that nobody takes you serious. Now have a goodnight and hopefully you wont wake up crying in the middle of the night since I just proved you wrong...hasta la vista baby KimNekroman (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a step back
I think we need to stop this rather pointless debate and concentrate on resolving the COI issues around these articles. KimNekroman, you definitely do have a conflict of interest with regard to these articles as evidenced by this discussion. The sources I provided above are the best available sources to base the article on. How can we tell if they are incorrect other than from your word? Some may not present you in a great light but wikipedia is about putting all available, reliable (from reliable sources - not actually the same as reliable - see Stuart Pearson (businessman) for an example) and verifiable information into an article, not what the subject would like to see in it. As has been explained someone with such a strong COI as yourself must take a step back from the editing of articles and only make minor changes for example of spelling and grammar. If a reliable source says it then for all intents and purposes on wikipedia it is true. We aren't going to change the article because people interviewing you take information from it that you don't like. <font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  has contributed much factual information to WP, something I cannot see KimNekroman having done recently if at all. Thank you, <font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  for your help in trying to resolve this, if you could perhaps be a little less agressive in your comments it would maybe help reach some form of conclusion (I do realise that you are not PC which is fine :). IllaZilla I suggest you start to edit the article using some reliable sources and I'll try and keep an eye on it to make sure editing by KimNekroman is within the COI guidelines. I would do some of it myself but I'm a bit busy at the moment. Smartse (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is of relevance here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24 Smartse (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And this :Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7. These confirm that we can use very little information from myspace pages. Smartse (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with taking a step back at this point. I've proven that WP still has a long way to go when it comes to credibility and what is reliable or unreliable sources. Hopefully it will make people who reads this think twice and aware that the truth and facts needs to come from somewhere. And that several ref's that contains faulty information and doesn't make sense when compared should raise a red flag and be reconsidered as being used as ref. If I had more time I would gladly contribute more to WP but I am pretty busy with another agenda in my life. Yes I have a COI but have remained objective when it comes to facts. If you cant trust the actual source who can you trust? Like I said before Smartse and IllaZilla are the types of Wikipedian's that are able to work toward solutions. The WebHamster should take more cold showers and move away from his parents house. over and out KimNekroman (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:62.117.66.228
from Moscow is repeatedly promoting an otherwise non-notable museum from Moscow, and there are grounds to suppose that he does so on behalf of the museum itself. Check his edits and his IP's location, you will see for yourself. Thank you, --RCS (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've warned the user about adding spammy external links and informed them of this discussion. RCS had already removed the links. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Janna Nickerson
appears to have a COI with. Edits such as this one indicate that she is likely the subject of the article. I couldn't find any information verifying some of the information (the place of birth and the engagement) she added. Could someone experienced with autobiographical articles explain to that what she is adding is unacceptable? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Subjects of articles can provide information on place of birth and such. There may be an interest, but it's the same as Wikipedia's, i.e. there is no conflict of interests. Key is that the text should be neutral. Phrases like 'happily engaged' are of course not neutral and should be reworded. :) No need to list this as an incident though, simply edit the text. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Subjects can provide biographical information, but only if it can be verified by reliable sources. I removed the place of birth twice because I cannot verify where this individual was born. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jklein212 Jonathan Hay (publicist) Sabrina (American singer)
The AfD discussion and contribution history kind of speak for themselves. The publicist article was created by this editor. Then we have the May 9 addition of wikilinks at other articles to the publicist by the same editor. Then we have the noting of "what links here" in the AfD discussion about the article. And the Sabrina article probably warrants some scrutiny too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to chime in with CoM's observation--to me, it's as clear as day that there's fishy things going on here. I've gone through earlier and removed a bunch of the wikilinks to Jonathan Hay, and I called it wikilink spamming in my edits--I hope that was OK. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am re-posting this here, from the AFD page, so it does not get overlooked: Please do review my history. You will see my diligence and attention to detail. I will agree that I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have made several mistakes (as most do) learning along the way. But I do know that you are to assume good faith. And assuming I am the person in this article and am using it for my own purpose is not assuming good faith. I am NOT the person in this article, nor am I related to him in any way. I simply chose this article as a starting point before I ventured on to other articles, and I have gone to great lengths to improve, learn and research. It can be very confusing learning to navigate around Wikipedia at first, so please assume that any mistakes on my part are not intentional. I am still learning. You will see that I have ASKED for help many times. As far as the "what links here" links, I understood that I was to go to other articles that included his name and link them to his page.

And if you would kindly take a closer look, you will see that I was NOT the one to move Jonathan Hay (publicist) to Jonathan Hay (songwriter) and will note my reply to editor that did so, here. I do not know who this editor is and had to remove a lot of things he added to the article, such as changing his middle name and some random words at the end of the article. But since he did remove the AFD, I assumed it was okay to continue working on the article.

I assure you, my only intention is to better Wikipedia, not add useless or spam-filled articles. I still feel strongly that Jonathan Hay is a good article for Wikipedia. (By the way, if you do a regular Google search for him, you will see page after page of coverage. I hardly think he needs the publicity from a Wikipedia page.)--Jklein212 (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already commented on Jklein212's talk page about how he is a single-purpose account who has done nothing but spam himself and his clients since he started here. Drawn Some (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Sabrina (American singer) does not meet any of MUSIC so I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Smartse (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw your speedy was declined so I did an AfD. I couldn't find any references.  The whole Jonathan Hay article and moves and problems with all of that has been cleaned up. Drawn Some (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)