Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
:::{{reply to|Nsk92}} It has the position title, but doesn't go into the duties involved. I can't say with 100% certainty whether it is genuine, but if it's a forgery it's one that has been composed IMHO with more care and attention to detail than Wikicology has displayed in his articles. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 01:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC). |
:::{{reply to|Nsk92}} It has the position title, but doesn't go into the duties involved. I can't say with 100% certainty whether it is genuine, but if it's a forgery it's one that has been composed IMHO with more care and attention to detail than Wikicology has displayed in his articles. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 01:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC). |
||
::::OK, thanks, but does the position title indicate being employed as a "laboratory scientist" or something similar? I am asking because, from reading the ANI and the original RFAR page, a key point of contention regarding wikicology's credentials seems to be his description of himself as an "academic" and a "laboratory scientist" that was contained in an earlier version of his user page (there also seems to have been some claim about being a "university lecturer" made in an RfA but I have not understood the precise context of that). Looking through the list of items submitted to OTRS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=713414102], the first two only provide the proof of a bachelor's degree. Having a bachelor's degree, in whatever subject, does not make one a "scientist" or an "academic". The last item is a "Postgraduate application form", which does not prove anything except that he ''applied'' for some postgraduate studies program. So everything seems to turn on the third item listed there, "Current employment appointment letter". If the position title given in this letter says something like "laboratory scientist", or something similar, then the letter could indeed be viewed as verifying some of Wikicology's claims in relation to his qualifications and credentials. Otherwise, I don't see how this letter can be viewed as substantively verifying Wikicology's claims. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |
::::OK, thanks, but does the position title indicate being employed as a "laboratory scientist" or something similar? I am asking because, from reading the ANI and the original RFAR page, a key point of contention regarding wikicology's credentials seems to be his description of himself as an "academic" and a "laboratory scientist" that was contained in an earlier version of his user page (there also seems to have been some claim about being a "university lecturer" made in an RfA but I have not understood the precise context of that). Looking through the list of items submitted to OTRS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=713414102], the first two only provide the proof of a bachelor's degree. Having a bachelor's degree, in whatever subject, does not make one a "scientist" or an "academic". The last item is a "Postgraduate application form", which does not prove anything except that he ''applied'' for some postgraduate studies program. So everything seems to turn on the third item listed there, "Current employment appointment letter". If the position title given in this letter says something like "laboratory scientist", or something similar, then the letter could indeed be viewed as verifying some of Wikicology's claims in relation to his qualifications and credentials. Otherwise, I don't see how this letter can be viewed as substantively verifying Wikicology's claims. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{reply to|Nsk92}} Your description of the degree and "application letter" match my observations. The job title does say that, although because it doesn't go into the duties of the position, I couldn't say whether he's doing cutting edge research, or going to get the coffee for the other scientists who are doing cutting edge research. As I said, I'm not saying that it bears out all of Wikicology's claims, just that the arbs ought to consider it carefully. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 03:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC). |
Revision as of 03:00, 17 April 2016
Attilaurm (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Scooby doo
Stop changing the accuracy of this page. My facts are proven. Yours are inaccurate. I will have you kicked off Wikipedia if you don't stop altering the truth. Writer2122 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Writer2122: Your threat to have me "kicked of Wikipedia" aside, you were updating the page on the television programme, which Takamoto did not create. He did help create the visual design of the character itself, as already noted at Scooby-Doo (character). Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC).
Talkback
Message added 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Lankiveil, any further comment on this? My last argument on the matter was (nutshelled) that indefinite semi of the user's talk page contradicts our user talk block policy. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Esoglou requesting unblock
Hello Lankiveil. You performed the block of Esoglou on 7 March 2015 per the Arbcom case, and he's now requesting unblock. This presumably needs an appeal to Arbcom. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: It looks like someone else has beaten me to it, but you're correct that needs an appeal. You can direct users in this situation to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
Books & Bytes - Issue 16
Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
- New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
- Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
- A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
- Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"Evidence presented by Lankiveil"
Have you personally reviewed these documents? I am sceptical of these claims to credentials, given the lack of elementary knowledge about the subject, and lack of basic writing skills. The 'Interim Bachelor of Science degree certificate' is supposedly interim 'because it can take 3-5 years to retrieve the original from Nigerian universities'. Is this true? On the 'Current employment appointment letter' have you verified that the company actually exists? He claims here that he works at "Dynamics medical laboratory and diagnostics service". Is this the same name as on the scanned documents? I cannot find any record of such a company.
Also here he says " I worked briefly as a college teacher and a medical laboratory scientist before I decided to obtain a postgraduate degree in Environmental biochemistry." So is he or isn't he now working as a 'medical laboratory scientist? Peter Damian (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter Damian: Yes, I have viewed them as described in my evidence. As I said, all I'm verifying is that they appear to be what Wikicology says they are. I have no knowledge of the Nigerian education system so I couldn't comment on whether his statement about "3 to 5 years" is accurate. With regards to his employment, I don't want to give away too much for fear of outing; but the document has many aspects that would indicate to me that it is genuine, and there is plenty of contact information provided which should make it simple for someone to contact the firm and confirm it exists. Whether he is still an employee of that particular firm, I couldn't say.
- As to whether they're genuine? I couldn't say, all I can say is that they're not obvious forgeries in my opinion, and that ArbCom should review them and take them into consideration. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
- Thanks. Perhaps he could confirm whether "Dynamics medical laboratory and diagnostics service" is the real name of the firm or not. If it's real, then he has already confirmed this publicly, and it's not 'outing'. If it's not, then it's not outing either! Peter Damian (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lankiveil, could you say whether the employment appointment letter actually confirms the employment position or duties as a "laboratory scientist"? If not, does the letter specify the position title or duties in some other way? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nsk92: It has the position title, but doesn't go into the duties involved. I can't say with 100% certainty whether it is genuine, but if it's a forgery it's one that has been composed IMHO with more care and attention to detail than Wikicology has displayed in his articles. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC).
- OK, thanks, but does the position title indicate being employed as a "laboratory scientist" or something similar? I am asking because, from reading the ANI and the original RFAR page, a key point of contention regarding wikicology's credentials seems to be his description of himself as an "academic" and a "laboratory scientist" that was contained in an earlier version of his user page (there also seems to have been some claim about being a "university lecturer" made in an RfA but I have not understood the precise context of that). Looking through the list of items submitted to OTRS [1], the first two only provide the proof of a bachelor's degree. Having a bachelor's degree, in whatever subject, does not make one a "scientist" or an "academic". The last item is a "Postgraduate application form", which does not prove anything except that he applied for some postgraduate studies program. So everything seems to turn on the third item listed there, "Current employment appointment letter". If the position title given in this letter says something like "laboratory scientist", or something similar, then the letter could indeed be viewed as verifying some of Wikicology's claims in relation to his qualifications and credentials. Otherwise, I don't see how this letter can be viewed as substantively verifying Wikicology's claims. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nsk92: Your description of the degree and "application letter" match my observations. The job title does say that, although because it doesn't go into the duties of the position, I couldn't say whether he's doing cutting edge research, or going to get the coffee for the other scientists who are doing cutting edge research. As I said, I'm not saying that it bears out all of Wikicology's claims, just that the arbs ought to consider it carefully. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC).
- OK, thanks, but does the position title indicate being employed as a "laboratory scientist" or something similar? I am asking because, from reading the ANI and the original RFAR page, a key point of contention regarding wikicology's credentials seems to be his description of himself as an "academic" and a "laboratory scientist" that was contained in an earlier version of his user page (there also seems to have been some claim about being a "university lecturer" made in an RfA but I have not understood the precise context of that). Looking through the list of items submitted to OTRS [1], the first two only provide the proof of a bachelor's degree. Having a bachelor's degree, in whatever subject, does not make one a "scientist" or an "academic". The last item is a "Postgraduate application form", which does not prove anything except that he applied for some postgraduate studies program. So everything seems to turn on the third item listed there, "Current employment appointment letter". If the position title given in this letter says something like "laboratory scientist", or something similar, then the letter could indeed be viewed as verifying some of Wikicology's claims in relation to his qualifications and credentials. Otherwise, I don't see how this letter can be viewed as substantively verifying Wikicology's claims. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nsk92: It has the position title, but doesn't go into the duties involved. I can't say with 100% certainty whether it is genuine, but if it's a forgery it's one that has been composed IMHO with more care and attention to detail than Wikicology has displayed in his articles. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC).