User talk:Mike Cline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Mike Cline! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I think it's very important for you to browse through some of the links below so as to become familiar with how Wikipedia works. If you need any help you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and another Wikipedian will show up shortly. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you're already loving Wikipedia and plan on becoming a Wikipedian you might consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, just paste {{Adoptme}} into your userpage and you will gladly be adopted! You might also consider joining a WikiProject so as to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! LittleOldMe 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - Understood --Mike Cline 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fly Fishing

Happy New Year Eagle....just wanted to let you know that I reverted back an article you changed Fly Fishing. I believe you thought there was vandalism but in actuality, I though, a well written contribution by Mike. Once again "Happy New Year". Shoessss 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because I am and was patrolling for spam. Adding 4 links to website forums, seems to qualify to me as extra fluff that takes away from the quality of the article. I would advise that most if not all of those should be removed, per our guidelines on external links. If any of them are useful, please include them as citations, just remember to check and make sure that they are reliable sources. I am sorry that I had reverted the rest of an otherwise good edit. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Note this message is also on the talk page of Fly fishing

I did see your comments on Mike's page about the links....I'll go an clean them up. Just wanted to give you a heads up on what was going on. Shoessss 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Mike...I did leave your links in place...they looked fine to me. Happy New Year! Shoessss 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

After a more careful review of the External Links guidelines I would have removed them myself. However, I think the first overview edits were appropriate. --Mike Cline 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your query

Hi Mike,

Sorry for the lack of response to your question, but I've been ill and have not been on Wikipedia in over a week. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. My advice would be to discuss the issue at the village pump. Regards LittleOldMe 12:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest?

I've noticed you've been adding a great deal of material to wikipedia that could be seen as promtional in nature for you, your company, and/or your co-workers. Since you've disclosed your employer on your user page, I'm rather surprised by it. Have you read through WP:COI and WP:SPAM? --Ronz 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz

I am intriqued my your comments and would ask this question: Is it a conflict of interest to add material to Wikipedia on processes or things practiced or recognized by many different entities? I have read the COI and SPAM topics but feel that I am not violating the spirit and intent of these guidelines. This is especially true of the idea that Wikipedia content be of a factual and neutral tone. Has anything I've added to Wikipedia not been neutral, balanced or documented. If you can identify those contributions that violate Wikipedia's neutrality to me, I would appreaciate it. I live on the Coosa River, and I have been contributing well documented information on the Coosa River topic. Because I live on the river, does that mean I have a conflict of interest and shouldn't contribute to the article. In the process of working on my current interests in Wikipedia, I encountered the article Twelve leverage points. An examination of that article reveals that it is based on the writing of one scientist, available only in the form a PDF paper. Although the single source has a clear bias and agenda, the article is essentially neutral in light of the single source. The article has survived since it inception in 2003 without any claim of conflict of interest. That is fine with me, I found the article informative, although I do not share the obvious bias of the author. I truely believe in the collaborative processes that make Wikipedia such a valuable resource. Making the complex simple, Wikipedia for me, my co-workers and my clients is a source of reliable, accurate knowledge. That reliability and accuracy is derived through truly collaborative processes. I will however be seriously concerned if it is the Wikipedia way to deny truth because of the source of the truth, rather than based on the falsity of the "truth." In the Wikipeida way, I welcome all challenges and edits to any contributions I've made--as long as they are based on documented facts, not personal agendas. --Mike Cline 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. My concern is with Strategic management, Strategic planning, Prometheus Process, Center of gravity (military) , Orchestrator (strategy), Rules of engagement (strategy), Prime Directive (strategy), Strategic campaign, etc. I'm asking you to consider your contributions to these articles in light of WP:COI and WP:SPAM, and consider making changes and/or disclosures as necessary. --Ronz 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I have again read the COI and SPAM guidelines. Two Points: 1) Although I can understand where you are coming from on the COI front, I do find it a bit insulting to connect any of my contributions with WikiSpam, but I may be wrong. 2) You suggest making changes and/or disclosures as necessary to the above group of articles. What changes might those be? If any of these contributions are not in the correct style, are not neutral, verifiable (and propertly referenced) or encyclopedic, then I need to learn how to make them so! If the article titles are equally inappropriate, then I need to learn how to correct that. The implication that because I am associated with a company (which I do not deny) (I was educated about and associated with the strategic planning discipline long before my current employment) that teaches strategy, my contributions are not neutral, encyclopedic, or verifiable is tough to swallow without specific cites to the contrary. Additionally, the COI guidelines suggest inviting others to contribute to articles. I welcome that, so just what is the best way to accomplish that?

--Mike Cline 11:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and wish I could answer better. I'm a bit overwhelmed with the amount of editing you've done in a short period, most of which I see as having COI issues. I've asked for assistance [1], and have been advised to bring this up on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.

You asked what changes would I suggest? Fair question. If I were you, I'd very strictly follow the guideline from WP:COI, "avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with". To do so, I'd delete all the new articles I've created (they all appear to be on topics your company consults and publishes), and move all references I've added to the corresponding talk page with a disclosure and a reason for adding the reference (especially references to your co-worker Colonel John A. Warden, III, to his books, to anything else published by under Venturist Publishing, and anything else that might appear promotional for your company). I'd then research verifiable, reliable sources to support my proposed references and edits to articles where I have a conflict of interest.

Personally, I just avoid contributing to articles where I have a conflict of interest. --Ronz 17:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started the noticeboard discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mike_Cline. --Ronz 17:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your questions on notability: WP:Notability is the general guideline, WP:BIO is more detailed relating to notability of individuals. --Ronz 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Links Question

Ronz, I noticed that you reverted an edit on the Innovation article on a See Also line by removing the explanatory comment along side the link. My question here is purely one of Wikipedia Style of which I cannot find a definitive guideline, although there no doubt may be one. Are explanatory comments allowed, encouraged or discouraged along side See Also links? A cursory examination of many Wikipedia articles disclose many See Also links with explanatory notes. If they are allowed (and not discouraged) then I would believe that the guidelines for them would be the same as for any content--accuracy, neutrality, verifiability, logic, encyclopedic, etc. And that editors, instead of just removing them (the explanatory comments), should correct them to make them so. Any guidance on this? --Mike Cline 11:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also. You'll notice that none of the articles where I removed the description had any other links with descriptions. Generally, I think you're stretching it with your See also entries, and there's a good argument for removing most, maybe all, of them. --Ronz 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Question On Commericalism

As anyone who reads this, may or may not know, I was involved in a recent COI skirmish with Wikipedia. I believe that has or is resolving itself. This is not a COI question! Recently I read the book "Wikinomics" just released in January of this year, so I thought I'd see if it was referenced somewhere in Wikipedia and it what context. I was also interested to see how the buzzword "Wikinomics" coined by the title of the book was being handled as well as the general concept of Wikinomics. All this was an attempt on my part to better learn how to avoid COI issues and other guideline problems in the future. Low and behold I find an article on the book, that reads like a typical book review, although in an NPOV sort of manner. I almost expected to find an Amazon link as I read the article. It wasn't far away. The link to the author's commerical website had the "Buy" button prominently displayed. There is an article stub for the term Wikinomics but it merely references the author's book as the source of the term and links back to the book review article. I think the editors who contributed to the "Wikinomics" book review article did a fair job at NPOV and I find the article useful but its not much different than a typical on-line advertisment for a product.

However, if that same approach was applied to just any book, new or otherwise, by editors that had absolutedly no COI related to the book, would it be considered commercialism and permitted on Wikipedia?--Mike Cline 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "official" link, and started a discussion on the situation in Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Official_book_site.3F. It's not cut-and-dry, since the editors have listed the site as an official site. Official sites are encouraged in most cases Wp:el#What_should_be_linked, but the site is highly promotional. The book is brand new and almost no attempt has been made to demonstrate its notability - all issues that I weigh against promotional links. It will be interesting to see what discussion results. --Ronz 17:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz. Your actions answered my question. Thanks. Most of the knowledge, especially the new knowledge, in this world is created by people who are in business to make money--I think this applies equally to private and public corporations and companies, non-profits, and academic institutions. They all sell stuff--products, services, etc. or solicit money to generate revenue. They have income statements and balance sheets. No website for any of the above categories of revenue generating entities ought to be allowed in Wikipedia. Associating the word official with any site doesn't disquise or mitigate the above. I would include government sites in the above list but...., well you know! Your thoughts?--Mike Cline 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, I really try to avoid dealing with COI issues, so I'm not very familiar with the guidelines. Second, I think the guidelines are going to be changed shortly if [2] is any indication. Finally, I think it's a matter of weighing the value of the information on a website against the amount of promotion and advertising. The problem isn't that everyone is out to generate revenue, but that there are many ways to do so. In Wikiepdia disinformation, advertising, and information are treated very differently - sometimes it's just difficult to tell them apart. There is an very good solution that I see in many wiki articles - few or no external links other than for references. --Ronz 03:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Suggestions For Contributions on Discussion Page Permitted in COI cases

Ronz If an editor cannot or choses not to contribute directly to an article because of a percieved or real COI, can that editor make suggestions on the Discussion page for the article. Suggestions made, not so much as to the specific content of the article, but to identify the wealth of source material available to support information for the article? To rephrase at bit, can a non-editor of an article still conduct research on the subject of an article and make that research available through the discussion page? --Mike Cline 19:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Editors are encouraged to contribute to the discussion page where there are COI issues. --Ronz 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. I think I am learning the rules here and will play within them.--Mike Cline 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz. As I have been following the COI guidelines discussion I noted this recent change to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page

This page in a nutshell: Avoid editing, or participating in discussions about, pages you may have personal interest in. This way, you will be less likely to represent your personal point of view on Wikipedia

I would think that this statement contradicts the advise you just gave me. Am a right?--Mike Cline 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have said that editors are encouraged to contribute proposals for changes as well as potential source references to the discussion page rather than the article itself, and to disclose their conflict of interest on the discussion page. So, WP:COI cautions against editing the article as well as participating in other types of discussions on the article's talk page. --Ronz 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I see where it got reverted. I think your original advise is correct. Thanks--Mike Cline 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Suggested Suggestions

Ronz, I'd like you to preview the following post which I will eventually put on the discussion page for the Prometheus Process to ensure I am being consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks.

The following URL is public and contains references and links to information related to the Prometheus Process, John A. Warden III, and the book Winning In FastTime. It is my hope that researchers and editors wishing to contribute to the articles on the Prometheus Process and John Warden find it useful.

[3]

--Mike Cline 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process

I was simply following the consensus on the page for the deletion. There was only one weak vote to keep the page and several votes to delete. There were a number of factors working against the article. The conflict of interest, yes, but there were also questions about the notability (see WP:CORP) and the reliability of the sources (see WP:RS). If you have any further questions, let me know. Best, IronGargoyle 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)