Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 2 July 2007

Conflicts of interest

COI/N - the Misplaced Pages Conflict of interest Noticeboard

Pointers

Did you use a template for this diff? Just curious, I had linked the AfD at the bottom but your way was more likely to be noticed/cleaner. Thanx for the input. — RevRagnarok 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's not a template, it's just a format I've developed informally over time to draw attention to small additions of significant information. — Athaenara 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still changing, too. — Athaenara 06:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Postscript:   → '' <u>See also</u>: ] ''   is the markup I use for it lately. — Athaenara 07:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anchor

→ (In re WP:3O requests , COI/N reports, WP:AN/3RR reports, article RfC, user RfC…)

• Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Athaenara, I want to just thank you for all your thoughtful help with Anchor, not only did you file a third opinion, but when the other party involved managed to have me blocked, you stepped in to try to help. I am happy the article is protected and thus the issue at rest for now, though Badmonkey seems very insistant on having his way and the COI notice did not seem to result in much. Though I am of the opinion that consensus at the moment suggests to leaving the section out which I origonally objected to, especially given Hoof Hearted's amazing effort to learn about the issues involved and then thoughtfully comment. Though regardless of consensus having been reached I dont think this is the last we will see of this issue, at least its at rest for awhile though! Thank you again for your thoughtfulness and help. Russeasby 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! You're right about editor consensus while one editor—and we're quite clear on which one—is not only disruptive, tendentious and uncivil but dishonest as well. After his second or third interjection on the 3RR page I just ignored him. — Athaenara 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For going out of the way to help in an edit conflict and trying to ensure fair treatment among the editors involved. Russeasby 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, protection was lifted from Anchor and as I was worried would happen, User:Badmonkey is back and he readded the section. I do believe consensus was reached on the talk page, but apparently he does not think so. Can I ask for your kind assistance and advice on how to proceed from here? I have not reverted his edit, I do not want to go through all that again. Any advice you give I will happily take and follow. Thank you! Russeasby 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ctbolt has the right perspective on consensus and policies and guidelines. I recommend letting him take the lead for awhile. — Athaenara 08:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to ask here, as I know you dont like posts here related to articles you already watch. But I felt this question did not belong on Talk:Anchor as it is a WP policy question. So my question is, would it be a violation of WP:CANVASS to leave notes on the pages of people who had previous contibuted a third party opinion for Anchor to notify them of the current WP:RFC active there. I am doing my best to abide by policy in all respects, but its getting rather complicated and some things such as this are not clear to me, thus why I ask for advice. Russeasby 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've shown good judgement in posting here, in my experience, so don't worry about that caution—it's intended for, hmm, well, I'll show you diffs sometime, more clueless users.

I saw the RFC and I expect to post* as one of the uninvolved parties later today. I think there's nothing wrong with notifying other NPOV editors of the RFC if they have previously commented and might have more to say, as long as you do it wholly neutrally without soliciting particular sorts of input such as support or condemnation. *

Remember you have a life outside of what one linkspamming COI SPA has turned into a dreadful little battleground, and remember there's no particular time limit to RFCs, nor mandated conclusions. — Athaenara 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't easy to take my own advice when, with characteristic ruthlessness, he posted a flurry of interjections and trumpeted "you are now anything but uninvolved…" — Athaenara 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you have stepped away from this dispute, but I have opened a Request for Comment on User:Badmonkey, if you could step in a moment and certify that you attempted to resolve the dispute I would be grateful. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Badmonkey Russeasby 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! — Athaenara 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Marie Killick

→ (In re Marie Killick article & report now in section #8 of COI/N Archive 6)

Thanks for the formatting. I'm not sure where this is going to go. As there are big COI and single-viewpoint issues with the main sources, access to contemporary newspapers is really necessary. It seems to have been a popular story with the lowbrow papers; The Times mentions only the bankruptcy proceedings. Tearlach 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This inventor's story is a significant episode in the history of audio engineering. — Athaenara 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Killick vs Pye Ltd case seems also significant on the patent law circuit, as an often-quoted precedent that a patent doesn't need to be a major developmental leap in a technology to be valid. Tearlach 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Taking time out from reading about sabre-toothed Thylacosmilus, Creodonta and Nimravidae)—Killick's daughter's website has several photographs showing datelines for contemporary 1950s newsmedia. Would that we could find text online to cite them more directly. — Athaenara 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, someone did! The New York Times (1958) and Chicago Tribune (1959).

Way to go, Crockspot! — Athaenara 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bichon Frisé

PS I think you'd make a great admin.

You're right. User Canadian Bichon Frise and user Canbichon are both linkspamming. I restored the version which existed prior to their intrusion. — Athaenara 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reverts! The funny thing is I don't even care for Bichon Frisés, but I will fight to the death for their right to a spam-free article here ;-) Ruhrfisch 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Check out the useful {{Uw-spam1}} and associated user warning templates, too—they look very useful. — Athaenara 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And here is the revert after the 3RR warning. — Athaenara 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Canadian Bichon Frise reported by User:Ruhrfisch (Result:Indef block; SPA)—nice work! — Athaenara 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and the useful templates (I tend to forget about the UW series and did not know the 3RR template at all). If only they were all this easy. Ruhrfisch 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm on the learning curve too. — Athaenara 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with COI SPAs

→ (In re COI/N discussions of DeVry University & COI SPAs and WP:ANI reports.)

I appreciate your closing of the initial bad faith report and summarizing the real problem.

I'm amazed how you were able to turn six long rambling reports on multiple notice boards into one simple clear statement and a few links.

Impressive!

Thanks and have a good day... --Parzival418 09:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And I thank you, Parzival, for appreciating my work and taking the time to tell me! — Athaenara 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi... I thought you might want to know how this turned out. A checkuser was performed and confirmed that the accounts were sockpuppets. The disruptions continued for another day or two, but now Codeplowed and his IP have been blocked for a month, and the sockpuppet accounts blocked indefinitely. The report is here on WP:AN/I. So once again, thanks, your help was instrumental in solving this difficult situation. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the update. I added a pointer to the now-archived WP:AN/I discussion to the WP:COI/N discussion as well. — Athaenara 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be getting bored with this by now, but if you're not,... Codeplowed already made two more socks, disrupted the article again, was reported again, the 2 new socks have already been blocked. Here's the quickly resolved SSP report: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Codeplowed (2nd). --Parzival418 _Hello 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not bored, just sidelined by browser/skin anomalies. Please continue to keep me informed according to your own good judgement. — Athaenara 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnote: Computer issues ("browser/skin anomalies") now in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 0.

MDS America merge

→ (See also MDS International section on Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.)

Hello. In a follow-up to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination), a merge of the article MDS America into MVDDS dispute has been proposed. You can voice your opinion, if any, on the matter at talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America. Thanks, nadav 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Endal

→ (In re Endal section in COI/N Archive 10 and AfD.)

Not sure if you intended to undo my change here or not . I am guessing this happened because you were working from a sandbox copying things over? If thats not the case, thats fine too, but I do think the history section is more appropriate first. Russeasby 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't even see it until I'd looked at the talk page and commented there. "New messages" flagged me down while I was looking at the article histories and trying to find the previous content your post mentioned. If you haven't already done so, follow through on placing the history/background section where it's best situated. Sorry my edit interfered with yours! — Athaenara 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

→ (In re: Talk:Endal#Pedigree)

Just a quick note to say thank you for your help in bringing the Endal page in to line with WP rules. I have pasted an article in the Endal discussion page, sent to me by the Labrador Club of Great Britain, which I hope resolves the "which Earl" problem (I do though have to salute your very thorough research, your personal effort in doing so is much appreciated and sets the standard for any additions)

Re the reference books, please free to contact us as I hold copies of all the books mentioned that Endal either has chapters in or is heavily referenced. But by your past record I don't think you'll need my help on this one either. Endal and Allen 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, you guys! — Athaenara 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vanishing

→ (In re: COI/N Archive 7 and Right to vanish)

Yes right to vanish does include blanking materials from google searchability. Content remains in the article history and no revisions were ever deleted. This is entirely appropriate per right to vanish. Please do not revert again. Feel free to review the discussion here for a second opionion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is not a problem. All I'll do then is check the archive to see that the single section was removed with all its pesky markup; it's a little tricky with the collapsible collapsed navbox format. — Athaenara 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)  

Archived section

→ (In re: report now in section #17 of COI/N Archive 11)

Hi Athaenara. Regarding this edit you made: (edits under line 200) What was the reasoning for moving the Roy Gordon Lawrence part to archive. I didn't see any notes as to why this was removed and was just curious on process, methodology, etc. Just trying to understand. Was this a mistake or intentional? Andyru 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is usual on an active noticeboard to archive inactive sections after two weeks or so. The one you refer to here had been inactive since May 1.

If a report needs more attention, returning it from an archive is not a problem, and I'll be happy to do that for you if you like. It will help, I think, if you can clarify it a bit, as it's hard to know what was meant by "scroll to bottom and view highlighted text." — Athaenara 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sure, bring it back and I'll make it more clear. If it goes inactive again, well then that should prove that it isn't worth the interest of public reviewers :) Andyru 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Athaenara 14:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Law Practice Today

→ (In re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today)

Please see my suggestion regarding Law Practice Today on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today. Cheers. --Edcolins 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I will, thanks for the note. — Athaenara 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Like minds

→ (In re: Raritan Computer section now in COI/N Archive 13)

I see you have set decreasing limits on Raritan too. I deleted some of the fluff, and then asked Seraphimblade to help out and he deleted a bit more. I just shook my head when all they wanted to do was decide which unsourced version to revert to. I figure that eventually when they see the article disappearing, they'll wake up. If I actually had time, I'd do some quick research and find some sources for them. Its an old enough company, something has to exist on them, somewhere. :) peace in God. Lsi john 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages really is an encyclopedia, not free content hosting for whatever commercial interests come down the pike. — Athaenara 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bookuser

→ (In re: User Bookuser section, now in COI/N Archive 12)

Could you consider reading through and comment on Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Bookuser? It looks like this is close to being settled, and fairly easily. There is still the issue of Bookuser overlinking MIT Press and Semiotext(e) as in Paul Virilio#Bibliography . Your perspective would be appreciated. -- Ronz  17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bookuser's decision to suggest links on article talk pages rather than add links at will to articles is what one would hope as per NPOV policy. I checked the Virilio bibliography and linked each publisher once, which is sufficient. I haven't checked others, though. — Athaenara 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think linking like this should be brought to Bookuser's attention? Discussed on COI/N? Both? -- Ronz  22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think other editors either don't notice or eventually reduce such overlinking. There's certainly no harm in mentioning it on either or both. — Athaenara 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

VAwebteam

→ (In re: Victoria and Albert Museum sections, (1) in COI/N Archive 12 and (2) on COI/N)

Hello ... you replied to my comment regarding Instructions in Noticeboard/Header create a problem, and I noticed that you had also commented on WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (which, BTW, I believe may be safely closed now) ... I don't know if you've been following "The Project" to bring VAwebteam (talk · contribs) up to speed, but I'm having a Civility problem with another editor at User talk:VAwebteam#To do list (can you say, "Going off-topic without making any contributions?")

I try Very Hard not to feed trolls, but I've recently wasted another block of pre-scheduled time responding to Johnbod (talk · contribs) about their insistence on following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the policies and guidelines in this situation, and I would really appreciate an intervention before it escalates to the level of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

I'm sorry, but if the time that I had set aside to work on a specific Misplaced Pages page is instead consumed by responding to their WikiLawyering, then I consider their posts "disruptive behavior" ... I had neglected to remember that Johnbod was the one who inserted that "entire history" vs. "entire art history" distraction into VAwebteam's COI discussion, otherwise I would have simply ignored them when they showed up on VAwebteam's Talk page, so I guess I only have myself to blame for taking their bait a second time. :-)

Anywho, thnx fer any assistance that you are willing to render on User talk:VAwebteam#To do list ... and please mark this plea for assistance as another disruption of my time, as well as (possibly) yours. Happy Editing! —72.75.100.232 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If "OK! Is this resolved now?" is a comment, I commented. Like quicksand, bickering on the sidelines is best avoided. I am particularly wary of such at the moment because of another situation which has many of the signs and symptoms of tendentious editing. — Athaenara 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy that … dealing with a WikiVandal should always take priority over a Talk page WikiTroll … I'll bug Some Other Editor who is both more familiar with the situation and with whom I've had more contact. :-) —72.75.100.232 02:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Timestamps

You edited my recent post on Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (about my Navbox snafu) with the comment, No need to change sig/timestamp on earlier post, though. Restored that. … look at the edit history, and you'll see that I did not edit the comment to make any such revision manually … my Verizon DSL IP address changed yesterday because of a momentary power failure that rebooted by modem, which you'll find documented on the User pages for both IPs… —72.75.70.147 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)   •   06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)   •   07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Diffs retrieved from COI/N history. — Athaenara 12:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! I guess my evil twin was just trying to avoid confusion from what may have looked like a single use account ... that IP lasted less than 100 hours between the 68.xxx and this one, as I recall ... that was a Very Stressful weekend for me (as I recall; I try to forget unpleasantness ASAP), so my sincere apologies for (a) doing something Really Dumb, and (b) denying it because I had forgotten what/why I did it. :-) —72.75.70.147 09:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Nehr

Thanks for reverting the tags on this article. It really needs a clean-up, but I may be too biased to do a good job myself. Bearian 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• User talk archives