Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs) stop spamming noticeboards |
Greenbay1313 (talk | contribs) →Ronn Torossian: new section |
||
Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
||
User has an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&diff=prev&oldid=400208664 acknowledged COI]. Many edits are promotional in nature, but do not qualify as outright spam. He's removed notability and COI tags from the entries, although not always without comment. This seems to me to be an SPA account, but not an outright spammer. May require attention from other editors. Thanks. [[User:Hairhorn|Hairhorn]] ([[User talk:Hairhorn|talk]]) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
User has an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&diff=prev&oldid=400208664 acknowledged COI]. Many edits are promotional in nature, but do not qualify as outright spam. He's removed notability and COI tags from the entries, although not always without comment. This seems to me to be an SPA account, but not an outright spammer. May require attention from other editors. Thanks. [[User:Hairhorn|Hairhorn]] ([[User talk:Hairhorn|talk]]) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Ronn Torossian == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|Ronn Torossian}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|Ravpapa}} |
|||
Ravpapa is non objective. Fancies himself an expert at inserting bias and has succeeded. Need assistance at [[Ronn Torossian]] www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Ravpapa/Tilt |
|||
[[User:Greenbay1313|Greenbay1313]] ([[User talk:Greenbay1313|talk]]) 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:06, 31 March 2011
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
Nick Halkes
- Nick Halkes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 83.217.115.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi all, I came across this article, which I found to be poorly written (not encyclopaedic in nature). Words like 'cuts' is slang and doesn't feel appropriate. It sounds like a press release with as many superlatives and fancy facts as possible.
examples of this: -Nick Halkes[1] is a U.K. based music industry executive known for signing and breaking multi-million selling[2] dance act The Prodigy.[3] -Nick's most recent, major A&R success with the band has been their 1.3 million selling "Invaders Must Die" on which he has a co-write on the title track,[4] a cut which enjoyed a list rotation on BBC Radio 1. -The Prodigy were the most played act on Radio 1 in 2009 scoring four A-list singles in a row. -Nick also runs a successful music publishing business (with cuts from writers ranging from A-Trak, Mujava and Princess Nyah through to cuts recorded by The Prodigy, Sash! and Joey Negro) and both DJs and gets in the studio as part of Kicks Like A Mule (with whom he enjoyed Top 10 UK chart success [10] as an artist and renewed profile following the Klaxons cover of ‘The Bouncer.’)
I also felt that it contained much promotion on the subject, including far too many details that would only be known by someone close to the subject, or possibly the subject themselves. The manner in which they are presented seems to indicate that they are written to maximise the positive light in which the subject is perceived - for example it talks about the works of some collaborators below (kelly price & rob davis) but does not mention the particular pieces that the subject worked on with those people. The final paragraph is more like a CV, as it contains details on the minutiae of his career - many items in detail which are possibly too insignificant to be considered suitable for biographies of this nature.
examples of this
-He is also a part time lecturer on the music industry to BA and MA students at University of Westminster in London
-Recent Kicks Like A Mule studio activity has included remixes on Kid Sister and Major Lazer with a single also released on U.S. indie Fool's Gold under the revised artist name K.L.A.M. An occasional song writer, Nick recently co-wrote a track on the Kenneth Bager album that is now gold in Scandinavia plus also co-wrote a song which was recently cut by Japanese artist Maki Goto. He has also co-written with Rob Davis (co-writer of Kylie Minogue's global smash "Can't Get You Out Of My Head") and Kelly Price who co-wrote U.S. number one 'Déjà Vu' for Beyonce.
-More recently Nick has used the Horx moniker for collaborative studio activity with both Jonny L on a cut called ‘18 years’ and with Adam F and Redman on a cut called ‘Shut The Lights Off’ which was released on Breakbeat Kaos, the latter scoring a Zane Lowe ‘Hottest Record In The World’[11] accolade. As Horx, Nick provided support DJ services on both the Prodigy U.K. Invaders Arena tour(including 2 dates at Wembley) and multiple dates on the European leg of the bands world tour. As K.L.A.M. the date sheet has included Bestival, Ministry of Sound and Fabric plus support dates on the Zane Lowe DJ Hero 2 Tour. Most recently Nick co-produced and co-wrote the single "Electric Boogaloo" for UK grime godfather and chart star Wiley. Nick was a keynote speaker at the 2010 'In The City' [12] music conference in Manchester and recently delivered 'masterclass' presentations at the Academy of Contemporary Music in Guildford, the Bristol Institute of Modern Music and the Brighton Institute of Modern Music. Nick has also contributed writing to the book Catch The Beat, which documents late '80s/early '90s underground club culture.
Why COI?
I edited this article to tidy it up and remove what I considered to be excessive. There were some problems with grammar, format etc in addition to the content issues described above. You can see my edit here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Halkes&diff=413577680&oldid=411788397
within less than 48 hours my edit was reverted back to the messy original article by IP 83.217.115.101 To give you an idea of user IP 83.217.115.101's contributions, here is there log http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.217.115.101
Of this user's 48 edits, 35 have been on this article, 5 have been on the band that subject of the article is a member of, 2 on the record label he was involved with and the remainder on related articles. Similarly, 35 out of the last 49 edits of this article have been made by that same IP.
I didn't want to get caught up in a editing/reverting war so was seeking advice here instead on how to proceed.
Thanks
User:HallucigeniaUK 15:12 (UHT) 20 March 2011
- 2011 Yemeni protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Flatterworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There have been various issues with the protest articles as a group, which one would expect because they're in the news. However, after reading this (see clip below) I became quite concerned that some are using Wikipedia as a means for 'shaping the news' in these articles to their own purposes. (This is the most egregious example I spotted, but not the only one and I haven't done a thorough check because of the time element.) We're an encyclopedia, not some propaganda machine. Of all topics, it's necessary to present all views ad not censor certain 'voices' as being wrong based on one person's personal view. There's a lot at stake, which is why I'm so appalled anyone would try to do this. I know nothing of The Egyptian Liberal and Lihaas other than what I've seen in Wikipedia.
- Done. I tried to fix the page outline of the page as much as I can. Y'all have a problem with the "Opposition factions" section tho, some of it should go under "Domestic Responses" while the rest fits more as an "Analysis". People in Yemen dont know many of this parties to its more Aljazeera take on it. BTW, Aljazeera and AlArabiya were unbiased when it was about Egypt, shit have changed since then so tried avoiding them as sources when talking about in country the might effect Saudi or Qatar [Bahrain (Both), Lebanon (Both), Syria (Qatar), Yemen (Both), Iran (Saudi), Iraq (Saudi), Saudi (Both), and the rest of GCC counties (Both)]. Unless you are going to somehow present the other side of the argument. Shit is fucked up as usual in the MENA. I have reading reuters, AP, BBC, AFP, NYT and the washington post. I know you might think that the washington post and NYT are liberal but they honestly stick to the facts (for the most part). -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Flatterworld (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, COI is my least favorite Wikipedia policy, because NPOV is the only thing that matters anyway. Lihaas is obviously internationally interested and Egyptian Liberal is as his username describes. Both are good editors and have care for sourcing. Lihaas especially is a stickler for policy and has on numerous times corrected or improved my writing. Egyptian Liberal is in the middle of the political situation, and very much involved. His insight, language skills, and dedication are huge assets, however, and if his politics come through, we can help to put it on track. From what I have seen of editing at the MENA protest article pages, it is a lot of very thorough and well-intentioned work. We're human and most of us are rooting for these revolutions to succeed peacefully. I don't know of any major problems, and if a little nudge is required it's not reflective of a major conspiracy. I suggest Flatterworld not assume that opposition to his editing suggestion means that COI is getting in the way; it could just be a disagreement about organization and editorial discretion, as happens all of the time. Please try and keep discussions about the merits of changes rather than their perceived motives. Many people are watching these pages, and bias, unintended or intentional, will not remain with that kind of attention. Ocaasi c 22:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- As for the comment that I wrote on Lihaas's page that you took and posted here. I am going to explain why I told Lihaas to do that. AlArabiya is saudi owned Network and Aljazeera Qatari owned networked. Aljazeera is government-run Network so taking there POV on the Qatari protests (for example), as unbiased would be a mistake. Talking the POV of the AlArabiya about the Saudi troops involvement in Bahrain (for example) as the truth would be a mistake. All news networks (in MENA) have agendas that shape their news. Hafez Al Mirazi for example was fired from Aljazeera before for talking about Qatar's involvement during Bush war on Iraq in 2003. He was also fired from AlArabiya this year for saying the during his next episode he was going to talk about the impact of the Egyptian revolution on Saudi arabia. I eat, drink and sleep MENA politics. Its part of my job. so when I say someone is biased about an issue, I always have facts to back it up. I would have liked it if you came and talk to me about it first user to user and I would have explained to you why I told Lihaas that -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is precisely the reason for multisourcing everything, including resignations. You and Lihaas insisted on one (1) ref at the date level, with some questionable people listed underneath. Some of those were only reported by al-Jazeera, which was why it was important they be noted as such, and those corroborated by other news sources be noted as that. It seemed the goal was to report as many as possible as absolute fact. That's not encyclopedic. There are many parties and people in Yemen, in power and interested in power, who require articles. I created the Cabinet article awhile back, and I've been working on articles of the major political parties and politicians. Ocaasi, many people are NOT working on these pages. imo protests and reforms are not just about day-to-day who-did-what-to-whom. I for one am much more interested in what comes afterwards - for which Wikipedia has just about zero information. I don't care about some "analysis" of why "pink" was chosen as the color of the protests, I want some serious information. I don't know of any source which is reliable on Yemen - they all have problems in one area or another. That's why we have to use all of them, and rely on multisourcing to help clarify things. That means a lot of research and a lot of footnotes, and I don't want to see my work continually deleted in favor of airy-fairy "just take my work for it" material. There isn't even agreement as to whether President Saleh and Major-General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar are half-brothers, cousins, or "just from the same village" (as Hamid al-Ahmar states). Pretending anything at all about Yemen is as straightforward as Egypt simply isn't true. Flatterworld (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I never said not multi-source everything. I said, "Unless you are going to somehow present the other side of the argument". "analysis" comes after the protests ends. its hard to analyze ongoing event. if you can, do it but I honestly cant. I waited until the Egyptian ended to start the "analysis" section after talking to many editors.
- That is precisely the reason for multisourcing everything, including resignations. You and Lihaas insisted on one (1) ref at the date level, with some questionable people listed underneath. Some of those were only reported by al-Jazeera, which was why it was important they be noted as such, and those corroborated by other news sources be noted as that. It seemed the goal was to report as many as possible as absolute fact. That's not encyclopedic. There are many parties and people in Yemen, in power and interested in power, who require articles. I created the Cabinet article awhile back, and I've been working on articles of the major political parties and politicians. Ocaasi, many people are NOT working on these pages. imo protests and reforms are not just about day-to-day who-did-what-to-whom. I for one am much more interested in what comes afterwards - for which Wikipedia has just about zero information. I don't care about some "analysis" of why "pink" was chosen as the color of the protests, I want some serious information. I don't know of any source which is reliable on Yemen - they all have problems in one area or another. That's why we have to use all of them, and rely on multisourcing to help clarify things. That means a lot of research and a lot of footnotes, and I don't want to see my work continually deleted in favor of airy-fairy "just take my work for it" material. There isn't even agreement as to whether President Saleh and Major-General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar are half-brothers, cousins, or "just from the same village" (as Hamid al-Ahmar states). Pretending anything at all about Yemen is as straightforward as Egypt simply isn't true. Flatterworld (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- As for the comment that I wrote on Lihaas's page that you took and posted here. I am going to explain why I told Lihaas to do that. AlArabiya is saudi owned Network and Aljazeera Qatari owned networked. Aljazeera is government-run Network so taking there POV on the Qatari protests (for example), as unbiased would be a mistake. Talking the POV of the AlArabiya about the Saudi troops involvement in Bahrain (for example) as the truth would be a mistake. All news networks (in MENA) have agendas that shape their news. Hafez Al Mirazi for example was fired from Aljazeera before for talking about Qatar's involvement during Bush war on Iraq in 2003. He was also fired from AlArabiya this year for saying the during his next episode he was going to talk about the impact of the Egyptian revolution on Saudi arabia. I eat, drink and sleep MENA politics. Its part of my job. so when I say someone is biased about an issue, I always have facts to back it up. I would have liked it if you came and talk to me about it first user to user and I would have explained to you why I told Lihaas that -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, COI is my least favorite Wikipedia policy, because NPOV is the only thing that matters anyway. Lihaas is obviously internationally interested and Egyptian Liberal is as his username describes. Both are good editors and have care for sourcing. Lihaas especially is a stickler for policy and has on numerous times corrected or improved my writing. Egyptian Liberal is in the middle of the political situation, and very much involved. His insight, language skills, and dedication are huge assets, however, and if his politics come through, we can help to put it on track. From what I have seen of editing at the MENA protest article pages, it is a lot of very thorough and well-intentioned work. We're human and most of us are rooting for these revolutions to succeed peacefully. I don't know of any major problems, and if a little nudge is required it's not reflective of a major conspiracy. I suggest Flatterworld not assume that opposition to his editing suggestion means that COI is getting in the way; it could just be a disagreement about organization and editorial discretion, as happens all of the time. Please try and keep discussions about the merits of changes rather than their perceived motives. Many people are watching these pages, and bias, unintended or intentional, will not remain with that kind of attention. Ocaasi c 22:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- btw - if "Its part of my job" as you say, I think that calls for a disclaimer on just what you do and who you work for. You have a lot to say about who news sources supposedly report to, but nothing about yourself. Which is exactly why we're at Conflict of Interest. Flatterworld (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dont worry, I dont work for any news outlet; I work in business. in a marco management position for a multi-national company. Part of job is to know the politics of the country that my company works in. that's all. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm understanding more that multi-sourcing was an issue, in light of the sourcing reliability questions. How about double-sourcing claims that are from one these potentially conflicted news outlets (regardless of whether there's a disagreement--after all, the whole point is to confirm it's not just a bias). I'd like to cut short the COI question with regards to EgyLib's work. Editing in this area is still potentially dangerous for anyone, especially anyone who actually lives in the Middle East, as EgyLib has disclosed. I think it's enough that he disclaim any potential work-COI and just keep an eye on good editing practices, as he has all along, and is continuing to do with more experience.
- Dont worry, I dont work for any news outlet; I work in business. in a marco management position for a multi-national company. Part of job is to know the politics of the country that my company works in. that's all. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- btw - if "Its part of my job" as you say, I think that calls for a disclaimer on just what you do and who you work for. You have a lot to say about who news sources supposedly report to, but nothing about yourself. Which is exactly why we're at Conflict of Interest. Flatterworld (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- As for analysis, I agree that it's just too early. The dust has barely settled, and while I want Wikipedia to have articles about the events as they happen, much of the analysis is still not clear--some of the events are still not clear. I'd like to recommend this move from COI to the article talkpages, and back to content and editing practices not insinuations of ill intent. Ocaasi c 05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Several things have gotten confused here. The issue began with the refusal to allow individual resignations to be multi-sourced, or even single-sourced. The goal is to be accurate, not mix rumors with facts in some misguided effort to 'help' one side or the other. Even the best of news sources can be misled by their 'trusted sources', so removing multiple sources should never be discouraged, let alone done. (Al Jazeera's been kicked out of Yemen now, anyway.) As for analysis, "pink" is not analysis at all, but appeared (imo) to belong in the 'opposition forces' description, if anywhere, which is where it was. Working for a business is fine, as long as it's not a business owned by one of the political contenders, or reliant on one of them. I am not asking for any particulars, unless he works for George Soros or Hamid al-Ahmar. ;-) I don't understand why no one else is interested in working on articles about the people likely to have a role in the next government, so I remain skeptical of motives here. Anyone who actually cared about the country would be concerned about its future, and not insist the only thing that matters is what's happening today or yesterday in the street. Yemen's protest is the one most likely to be hijacked, and you either don't care or don't want anyone to know anything about the contenders. Ocaasi, I don't know what you consider the scope of 'analysis', but articles about the background of those competing for power is NOT analysis which is "too soon" to write, but what's needed right now. As I said, Wikipedia is NOT Wikinews. I have no problem with the Timeline, but that should NOT be our focus and only coverage. What I see is some people bragging about all their knowledge of the area - but refusing to write much of anything useful for readers wishing to understand who all the groups and players are. Anytime someone does that, I have to ask myself why they don't want anyone else to know - especially when they actively discourage others. That's all I have to say. Flatterworld (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, You and Lihaas did not mention that in the talk page (multi-sourcing). If she has opposed it, I would have been on your side. I believe that wikipedia should always have a NPOV even when its really hard to do so. My heart and soul was/is with the protesters in Egypt but through out the article I tired to best of my ability to keep its NPOV. Ocaasi, Lihaas and others can testify to it. As for my job, I cant name the company as I feel it would be promotion on my side (I never edit its page on wikipedia so I wont be pushing my POV). All I can tell you about my work that we dont deal with any politician from anywhere ever (including glenn beck's George Soros :D). I am not working/will work on any political figures right now because I honestly dont know any of them (Outside Egypt). If info is available, i might help but I dont want to be the main editor on the article. FYI: You and Lihaas were united against me few times before in different articles so give her a break :D -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Several things have gotten confused here. The issue began with the refusal to allow individual resignations to be multi-sourced, or even single-sourced. The goal is to be accurate, not mix rumors with facts in some misguided effort to 'help' one side or the other. Even the best of news sources can be misled by their 'trusted sources', so removing multiple sources should never be discouraged, let alone done. (Al Jazeera's been kicked out of Yemen now, anyway.) As for analysis, "pink" is not analysis at all, but appeared (imo) to belong in the 'opposition forces' description, if anywhere, which is where it was. Working for a business is fine, as long as it's not a business owned by one of the political contenders, or reliant on one of them. I am not asking for any particulars, unless he works for George Soros or Hamid al-Ahmar. ;-) I don't understand why no one else is interested in working on articles about the people likely to have a role in the next government, so I remain skeptical of motives here. Anyone who actually cared about the country would be concerned about its future, and not insist the only thing that matters is what's happening today or yesterday in the street. Yemen's protest is the one most likely to be hijacked, and you either don't care or don't want anyone to know anything about the contenders. Ocaasi, I don't know what you consider the scope of 'analysis', but articles about the background of those competing for power is NOT analysis which is "too soon" to write, but what's needed right now. As I said, Wikipedia is NOT Wikinews. I have no problem with the Timeline, but that should NOT be our focus and only coverage. What I see is some people bragging about all their knowledge of the area - but refusing to write much of anything useful for readers wishing to understand who all the groups and players are. Anytime someone does that, I have to ask myself why they don't want anyone else to know - especially when they actively discourage others. That's all I have to say. Flatterworld (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Michael L. Gross (chemist)
- Michael L. Gross (chemist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mlgross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Mlgross has added extensive info to Michael L. Gross, sourced to (you guessed it) - Michael L. Gross. The Interior (Talk) 08:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Madhvan K. Palat
- Madhvan K. Palat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Firedragon35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A comparison of the editor's User page and the article appears to show that the user is the article topic. User has repeatedly removed {{coi}} flags even after WP:AUTO policy has been pointed out. There is, however, sufficient supporting material to preclude speedy deletion under CSD:A7. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
University of Santa Monica
- University of Santa Monica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- KateSwim74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kate apparently works for the University, and is eager to tell the story of this unaccredited center for "Spiritual psychology", despite a pathetic lack of reliable sources. She was blocked for using one of the school's operators' names as her username, which we fixed; but Kate cannot seem to understand WP:COI and WP:RS, feeling that she need only do datadumps from the operation's own website. Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Marcis Liors Skadmanis
- Marcis Liors Skadmanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Biography of Skadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Single purpose account, appears promotional, likely COI, removing maintenance templates w/o discussion or explanation. The subject may or may not meet notability guidelines; I've nominated it for speedy deletion owing primarily to the lack of reliable objective sources. 99.11.6.56 (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
CTO Forum
- Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There is a magazine called CTO Forum on Wikipedia, however, I work for CTO Forum, Inc. I want to have an article for CTO Forum, Inc., which is a non-profit and I want people to be able to find our page when they search for "CTO Forum".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.232.202 (talk • contribs)
- Please make a request at WP:Requested articles. – ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
CTO Forum
I work for CTO Forum, Inc., but someone else has an article under that name and it is from Wikipedia India. Can I use the name for an article within the Wikipedia USA project? Can I include some text that says "If you are looking for CTO Forum, Inc., click here," or something like that? I want to be fair to the magazine that is in India using the same name as our non-profit, but I also want to have an article for our non-profit that people can find when they search for "CTO Forum".
- The article would be created at CTO Forum (company) to disambiguate it from the other article, but you should not create it yourself because of your COI. Please use the Requested articles process. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Affion Crockett
- Affion Crockett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Plpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user uploaded the image seen on the article page which has gone through the OTRS system. The user also has made quite a few edits to the article, with most of its content now a result of those edits. The negotiator between the photographer and Wikimedia for the image was Patricola/Lust Public Relations, which matches up nicely with the username. Content may need review. Adrignola (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
TPP (The Phoenix Partnership)
- TPP (The Phoenix Partnership) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tpptruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sarahtpp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Article is currently undergoing a negative makeover, courtesy of Tpptruth (talk · contribs). In the past has had a positive makeover by Sarahtpp (talk · contribs). Could use some WP:NPOV checking. Elizium23 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Mdvanii
- Mdvanii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Alan Poole 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The two major contributors to this article may have personal and/or professional relationships with the subject matter's creators. Please refer to the article's Discussion Page for further information. Thank you. Alan Poole 8 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please list them here, that is why we have this noticeboard, for ease of remedying the situation. CTJF83 21:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to know whom you feel is such, my case was long settled last year ( I made a mistake in my name and it was corrected) and I am one amongst many people working on this article. I also would like to know what is in the article which seems COI...its totally encyclepedic now with all dry facts about the very complex artwork and artists. I feel this COI has a personal agenda of some sort because I do not in a any way see the COI at all. The article is pure dryfacts about the work of art in question. AND how or why would you think there is professional or personal contact with the subject just because people are passionate and knowledgebale about it...it is a phenomenon in the art work in Europe and there are those who really support it.Blanderàmort (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how the article appears COI. Its pretty clear and the tag should be removed in my opinion. Its a work of art and its very multi-layered. It has a had a great deal of research clearly and everything checks out exactly as stated. Tag should be removed. ALphaWord (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Simply put, the Mdvanii article was started by a person who works for the dollmakers and runs a Facebook group where she offers Mdvanii items, for sale it would seem. That's the person who started the article; the majority of the article is written by another person who has a personal relationship with the dollmakers. The dollmakers even claim he is their son. He is also reported to sell Mdvanii items on eBay. So both parties have a financial interest in this article, and the major contributor has what appears to be some sort of personal relationship, as well. If you look at Alec jiri's Talk Page, you'll see, near the top:
"I have started, with Cheong Kwon, to UN-Peacock the article, if we understand the meaning of fluff means... Thanks, Alec Jiri"
He wrote that on 23 December 2010 before the COI claim occurred. Kwon is the article's originator, and Jiri is the article's major contributor. Once the COI happened, Jiri initially didn't initially deny any of the claims of being "Alec Jiri-Lestrade-Boy*"... it took him three days to change his story to:
"I should mention I am not THE Alec Jiri associated with the artists. I know him however. He supplied me with many of documents to do this article for which I may re-state, am neither paid or rewarded in any way. I get the documents from the artists directly."
This is found on the Mdvanii Discussion Page. Now, even here he admits having a relationship to the dollmakers, even though he now denies he is "Alec Jiri-Lestrade-Boy*" And eventually, on 5 January 2011 he changes his name from Alec jiri to Blanderàmort, and again this information can be found in Alec jiri's Talk Page.
I and many others, including obviously the person who started this claim here, feel that the above information I have provided - and which can be checked by going to either Alec jiri's Talk Page or the Mdvanii article's Discussion Page - is grounds for a Conflict of Interest claim on the Mdvanii article.Legalpower (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note that I've blocked both User:Blanderàmort and User:ALphaWord for abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Roscoe Thompson
- Roscoe Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Randyt10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Significant edit by the son of Roscoe Thompson, Randy Thompson, adding information from a reference that was written by the son. Adrignola (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Tahseen Jabbary
- Tahseen Jabbary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tasen55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is an SPA. He created the article Tahseen Jabbary using content pulled from the subject's agency's profile, plus additional unsourced content, which conspicuously fails verification. The article survived AfD because somebody was able to see a little real, verifiable notability under the blather and create a decent, referenced, stub. There is very little in RS about the subject and the stub covers pretty much all that there is. Tasen55 continues to repeatedly wipe out this referenced stub with his preferred version of the article. His version has evolved a bit from the start but is still referenced only to improper primary sources (including Linkedin) and contains unverifiable claims. This is unacceptable in a BLP yet he makes no attempt to discuss or justify his edits. I have tried warning him and explaining things to him. He has been blocked before and not mended his ways. Nothing works. I originally tried sending this to ARV as a vandalism/spamming issue but it was rejected as not blatant enough. Given the single purpose nature of the account, the instance on using primary sources and the similarity of the name Tasen with Tahseen, I think we have a clear COI here. Although it is not totally clear whether this is actual autobiographical writing, the fact that he insists on adding an unreferenced alleged birth date and location for the subject (which I can not see published anywhere else) does raise this suspicion. DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Giridharilal Kedia
- Giridharilal Kedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Image Institute of Technology & Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Odisha1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Odisha1, is of our Odia Wikipedia Original name Srikant Kedia, grand son of Giridharilal Kedia. May be Giridharilal Kedia is a notable person but, Image Institute of Technology & Management is a authorized Learning Center of Punjab Technical University (PTU). Is it notable insitute? Please check.Giridharilal Kedia in Odia wiki- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Long Range Acoustic Device
- Long Range Acoustic Device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- LRAD Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lradcorporation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A new user with an obvious corporate affiliation has been taking out some of the cited text in these two articles, especially that text which shows the humble and bumpy beginnings of the corporation as founded by Woody Norris. Other text removed is a former vice president, Carl Gruenler, who is quoted in The Economist describing unflattering specifics. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Nick Perri
- Nick Perri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Walt Lafty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sinai (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Georgesummer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has an acknowledged COI. Many edits are promotional in nature, but do not qualify as outright spam. He's removed notability and COI tags from the entries, although not always without comment. This seems to me to be an SPA account, but not an outright spammer. May require attention from other editors. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Ronn Torossian
- Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ravpapa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ravpapa is non objective. Fancies himself an expert at inserting bias and has succeeded. Need assistance at Ronn Torossian www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Ravpapa/Tilt Greenbay1313 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)