Talk:Quizzing.co.uk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This topic is experiencing something of an edit/revert war. A user under an IP address insists on adding a great spew of rankings. I have removed these because they make the page look a mess. There is also an insistence on removing any negative comments about the subject making the article very POV. I have tried to fix it, and stand by all my edits, despite being accused of vandalism here: [1]. Jw6aa 01:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The above-mentioned link has since been removed. It said:
Quizzing and Wikipedia      

We've created a page on Wikipedia for the National Quiz Circuit and the National Rankings.       
Our intention is to create pages for all ranked players. So, if you are ranked and would         
like us to create a page for you, please send us the details you'd like us to put up.    

We'll be 'tarting it up' over the coming days and would very much appreciate your thoughts       
and comments as to what should be entered. We will probably give the section a new title         
along the lines of British National Quiz Circuit.        

You can see our page at www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/quizzing.co.uk         

Sadly, two individuals with too much time on their hands keep vandalising the page       
including name calling and removing the links we've put in to the rankings. What a pity to       
see such a tremendous public utility being abused in such a manner.

Please stop deleting my valid content to this page. Also long lists, if appropriate to Wikipedia, should be included on a seperate page. However, I think the information you are trying to add will change too often to make this worthwhile. Davidbod 01:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Jones is currently banned indefinitely from Quizzing, and both of these contributors own rival websites, so they hardly make the most objective commentators. They keep removing my comments without justification or explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.36 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 March 2006.

Please sign your comments, you are welcome to demonstrate where I've made a non-objective comment. I don't believe I have. I consider much of edits by IP 195.93.21.33 to be POV, so have reverted/amended where appropriate.Jw6aa 01:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Using words such as "tyrannical" are completely POV, especially by an owner of a rival website, and removing links that were requested by Wikipedia and DavidBod is deeply hypocritical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.36 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 13 March 2006.

Wasn't "tyrannical" used to describe the British quiz scene? I don't recall using that word apart from in reverts or by way of leaving it there when it existed, but it seems pretty appropriate doesn't it? Jw6aa 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] User:195.93.21.33

This user has continually inserted POV phrases, reverted legitimate edits and removed legitimate sections. They have been reported: [2]. Jw6aa 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that Quizzing.co.uk hold ‘their version’ of World, European and British Championships. The article suggests that these events are official along with the rankings. I think this needs to be stated. Ep6ac 02:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

they are the only organisation to run these events, therefore they are the official ones. Not Jane Allen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.36 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 13 March 2006.

This does not make it official. Ep6ac 02:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am accused of vandalism several times here: [3] I invite anyone to demonstrate where I have vandalised the article. My position has been to revert whenever the article is replaced/vandalised with a very POV version. The page is supposed part of an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. Jw6aa 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Jones position is that his opinion on Quizzing.co.uk is "objective" despite the fact that he owns 123quiz.net and David Bodycombe owns UKgameshows.com, two much smaller rivals to QUIZZING. Will Jones is also webmster to UKGameshows

Bodycombe admits that he created the page to quizzing.co.uk, so QUIZZING did not create this page as an advertisement, and Jones has since amended it to denigrate QUIZZING and promote his own site, and linking to it. He is banned from QUIZZING so his opinion on the organisation is inevitably highly subjective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.36 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 13 March 2006.

DavidBod did not create the page as the advertisement you continually paste in, please read the original version. The problem is that your version [4] is an advert. You have reverted this version [5]. Please explain why. The former is a blatant NPOV violation. Jw6aa 10:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The blatant NPOV violation is by Will Jones, owner of 123quiz.net which is trying to get a link to his site by this article, piggybacking off the more successful article. I have put in a factual post which does not fit with Jones attempt to defame QUIZZING.co.uk. Those that can do, those that can't slag off —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.36 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 13 March 2006.

I would invite anyone who takes 195.93.21.36 comments seriously to compare the two articles and read the discussion on this talk page. The version pasted by 195.93.21.33 is a blatant NPOV violation - he/she removes legitimate comments, presents things as official when they are not, accuses me of POV violation. 195.93.21.36 has also removed my signature (a possible mistake), and one of the users mentioned removed discussion from this talk page. The user has already been warned on their talk page. Jw6aa 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The facts I placed in the Quizzing.co.uk article are there as a matter of interest and record. The UK has had a long history of a number of quiz organisations and the relevant paragraph is providing context to this. For what it's worth, the link to 123quiz and the BQA were placed there by me (not Jw6aa) as I think they are useful for readers. That is the only criterion I am using for the writing. Note that there is no entry for my site in this article nor Wikipedia as a whole. As it happens, I believe the amount of traffic that Wikipedia would give to a site is far less than Google. Davidbod 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Jones, banned from Quizzing, continues to denigrate quizzing and blatantly plugs his own website 123quiz.net. I do not accept his warning and will keep doing this as long as he continues to use wikipedia to defame quizzing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.36 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 March 2006.

You seem to think the article is not acceptable unless it is an advert for Quizzing.co.uk This is an encyclopedia, not advertising space. I didn't even add the link you suggest (check the history), but for sure it has re-appeared in reverts. 195.93.21.33 has been warned by another user in addition to being warned by me. I invite you to demonstrate where I have added my POV to the atricle. I am trying to keep the article neutral, and stop it from becoming an advert. Please sign your comments and stop turning the article into an advert. Jw6aa 13:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Accept his warning or don't. You will, however, accept my warning and Wikipedia's editing policies. It remains to be seen whether you will continue an edit war. Femto 13:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Quizzing.co.uk need to understand that this is not a personal attack. As jw6aa says, this is an encyclopedia and not an advertising site. The article needs to be accurate and unbiased. Ep6ac 13:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This article was intended as a personal attack, and as ep6 raises the issue of bias:

Jw6 - Will Jones, owner of 123quiz, webmaster of UKgameshows and currently banned from QUIZZING events

DavidBod- Owner of UKGameshows website, rival to QUIZZING. He admits to creating this article in its original highly biased form

Ep6 - Peter Ediss, estranged father of child by director of QUIZZING and close personal friend of Jw6

Under the guise of neutrality this is an attack on QUIZZING by these supposedly "unbiased" people

I invite you to give examples where DavidBod, Jw6 or myself have been biased or inaccurate. Once again I will state that this is an encyclopedia and not an advertising site. The personal comment about myself is both inappropriate and unproven and I would like the moderator to take note of this and that the poster has not signed their comments. Ep6ac 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I invite all of you to show where my comments have been biased. People can have radically different opinions on subjects as this topic shows, what I have done is to demonstrate an obvious conflict of interest to the original "unbiased" postings, though I will give credit to jw6 for toning down the latest post--195.93.21.36 18:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Windlesham

As far as I can tell, you have only contributed to the talk page. Which edits to the article are you claiming? Jw6aa 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If you have made the recent edits as 195.93.21.33, I would submit the following:
  • addition of "The UK's largest quiz website" - this claim is unverified, POV and makes the page read like an advert
  • Change from "Quizzing.co.uk National Quiz Rankings" to "Uk National Quiz Rankings" makes it look like they are the official UK quiz rankings when they are not.
  • Change from "They also publish their own UK quiz rankings" to "They also publish the UK quiz rankings" (same as above) Jw6aa 18:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe QUIZZING are the ONLY organisation to publish rankings so that makes them THE UK rankings, and they are also the body sanctified by the IQA so that makes them official--Andy W195.93.21.36 18:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • They are not the only organisation to publish rankings, thus your claim is untrue.
  • The "IQA" is an organisation set up by Quizzing to make them look more official
  • "emerged from the ashes" - this is POV and implies the BQA stopped and Quizzing began - this is not true
  • You are also removing legitimate mention of another organisation that was put here by Davidbod in exchange for a slur about the other organisation. This is POV.
  • I am reverting, you did make something of a legitimate addition which I will seek to re-introduce, the edits (assuming they are yours) are POV and should be discussed here first as this article is contentious Jw6aa 18:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In challenge to jw6's points 1) They are the only organisation to publish UK rankings. I challenge you to show another organisation that does, or are some miraculously going to appear on 123quiz tonight?

2) The IQA consists of Quizzing and something like 12 other national organisations each representing their countries.

3) Agreed this is a simplification, I was sparing Trevor Montague's blushes. The BQA stopped running events due to lack of support within 12 months of the arrival of QUIZZING.

4) What slur on other organisation?

5) what this comes down to is that you are denying my right to edit your opinion, as is explicitly stated in the notes at the bottom of this page. How can the owner of a rival website to QUIZZING claim the right to be the final authority on this article?--Andy W195.93.21.36 18:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My reply:

  • 1) The Internet isn't the only place where things are published, 123Quiz does have a rankings system, and the rankings from last year and the first event of this year have been published for a couple of weeks. Those for this year will be published on-line once the report on the most recent event is complete.
  • 2) The "IQA" was formed to make Quizzing look like an official organisation, a good idea I guess, but it, like Quizzing is a company rather than an association.
  • 3) Looks like you agree with me.
  • 4) The issue here is that you remove direct mention of the other organisation to make the page look like an advert. It wasn't added by me, but by Davidbod, and removing it is clearly POV. Tell me why the organisation should not be mentioned by name.
  • 5) I am not denying your right to edit the page. Very little of the content was added by me. My interest is in stopping the page becoming an advert that censors legitimate content. This is an encyclopedia, not advertising space. Jw6aa 19:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Andy W, you as the opposed party that wants to introduce a change will have to accept that the article remains in its previous state until there is consensus on the talk page. In case this discussion leads nowhere, the resources of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes would be the next step. However it's nice to see that it starts moving a little bit from the article's edit summaries to the talk page. I added a {{POV}} tag. This should take any remaining pressure off of both sides wanting to 'correct' each other's bias in the live article. Femto 19:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We are not going to get anywhere with wholesale reverts. I did try some edits which I thought might have been non-contentious, but they've gone out with the tide. "born out of a disagreement with Trevor Montague's (now dormant) British Quiz Association in September 2002" is out of date and of no note without any supporting links - it does NOT need to be constantly put back. I see no need to mention the bannings however they are described. I don't see why there shouldn't be a link to 123quiz since it is mentioned in both versions of the text - but it belongs in Links, surely? Claims about "largest" are puffery without some kind of factual evidence - if such there be, post it? How does one website get to be larger than another, anyway? -- Ian Dalziel 20:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The edits you made appeared to be small edits to the advertisement version of this article. It's clearly necessary to re-introduce worthy NPOV content to the article. If you explain what you want to add/remove, we can discuss it here. I think the BQA reference is relevant, as it relates to the origins of Quizzing.co.uk . Regarding the link to 123Quiz.net , I don't think it needs to be in the links section, but I think its inclusion is certainly relevant in-line, but not at the end, since I think the end is where the user might expect to find pages about the subject rather than a link of this sort. I agree that "largest" claims are indeed unverified and have removed these from the links section when they were placed there. Jw6aa 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and whatever else you do, lose the furshlugginer apostrophe out of the possessive "its" or I'll haunt you, I swear I will! -- Ian Dalziel 20:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward, my 2p: 1) Quizzing.co.uk staff ought not edit this article, as per Wiki rules. 2) The article should be NPOV. This means reporting all sides of the information. 3) The title of the article should not be altered otherwise it does not match its place in the index. 4) New articles on similar topics to this ought to be sufficiently notable. This is all I ask. Davidbod 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with David Bod on this principle, but instead that would leave this article at the mercy of Will Jones and Peter Ediss, two individuals with a clear reason to denigrate QUIZZING.

The Wikipedia principal of NPOV is absolutely proper, but look at why this debate started:

1) Two owners of rival websites to QUIZZING create and edit this page, hardly unbiased. 2) When a supporter of QUIZZING attempts to redress the balance I get accused of being POV and creating an advert.

Bear in mind this started because UKgameshows and 123quiz tried to use Wikipedia to damage a business rival. I will keep editting this as long as jw6 insists on writing it "his" way--Andy W195.93.21.36 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to this statement. I am a fair minded person, and the history shows I did include much useful information from your contributions that put Quizzing in a positive light. What I object to is that background information I included was removed without due reason. And if you keep editing the article without reaching concensus on here first, your IP will continue to be banned. Davidbod 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Where have me/Davidbod edited the article to make it biased? Please tell us. If you want me to explain the individual instances of POV in the version of the article that you seem to support, I will go through them one by one - there are many, and many legitimate parts of the article are deleted without reason or discussion when the POV version is posted. How have we used Wikipedia to damage a business rival? Please tell us, this is supposed to be a NPOV encyclopedia - we're trying to keep it that way. Jw6aa 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How about just suggesting changes on here, and see if we can agree on a version without *any* bias? -- Ian Dalziel 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion from Ian. My suggestion would be to split this into three entries: QUIZZING which concentrates on what it does, 123QUIZ which concentrates on what it does, and the BRITISH QUIZ SCENE which both parties put objective facts in (e.g. comparable attendance figures at recent events, membership of sites, number of posts etc...)

While DavidBod objects to me calling him biased, I am afraid I must stick by that claim IN THIS SUBJECT. David, Will and Peter all have an interest in this area and common convention is to publicly declare this interest. Why won't they?

I will declare that I am a supporter of QUIZZING and friend of one of the directors, though I have no financial involvement in QUIZZING or any associated companies. I look forward to reading their response.

And finally on a more technical point, why does Will insist on removing links to the Genre stats kept by QUIZZING? Surely this is non-contentious?--Andy W195.93.21.36 13:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: your first paragraph, are you suggesting separate articles or sections to this article? I note that there is already a page on Quizzing in India, so something like Quizzing in the United Kingdom might be appropriate. I'm not convinced 123Quiz warrants its own article, but I would contest the idea that 123Quiz doesn't warrant mention in this article. To not mention is to censor valid information added by Davidbod.
Please show where me/Davidbod have been biased. It is clear from the edit history that a biased version of this article is posted when 195.93.21.33 edits. We are seeking to keep the page an encyclopedia entry and stop the page becoming an advert. Thank you for discussing changes, I'm sure this will be helpful.
My interest in this area is in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. The implied suggestion is that because I am involved with a particular web site that I shouldn't be editing this article. I strongly suspect that if the editing of this article was left to people not involved with particular web sites, it would rapidly become a POV advert for Quizzing.co.uk - this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We're trying to keep this thing NPOV.
Removal of Genre stats has taken place when the page has been fixed. I don't think it's necessary to have a great big string of links to the same site when a user could very easily click on the link to the site and find this information, but debate is welcome. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Jw6aa 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Formation section, why was this line deleted: <<They (123 quiz events)are smaller in nature than QUIZZING's but they do offer cash prizes and sometimes have a childrens section.>>

This is an objective fact, provable by published attendance at events. When will it be restored?--Andy W195.93.21.36 13:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this information, like the links mentioned above tends to disappear when 195.93.21.33 is reverted. It makes the article read a bit like it's written from the POV of Quizzing.co.uk , but I don't deny that in terms of raw numbers of people attending it's an objective fact although by other criteria it might not be. I have problems with non-NPOV and the page looking like an advert, so I think it would be ok to be restored along with other deleted objective facts. Jw6aa 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

While we are talking about "objective facts" can I highlight an absolute untruth cited in the article. Towards the end it states ...

"... after an internal disagreement which became public, a former Quizzing.co.uk staff member and several of their users broke away to form a new website, 123quiz.net ..."

Er no. The "disagreement" post-dates the formation of 123quiz.net by several months. The first publicised indication of the "disagreement" did not manifest itself until October 2004 whereas 123quiz.net was on-line at least as early as July 2004 (the domain was actually purchased in March 2004 – at a time when jw6aa was a house guest of one of the Directors of Quizzing). I have in my possession an e-mail from said website, dated 2 August 2004, welcoming me as a member to it. Besides which, the date of creation of 123quiz.net ought to be simple to establish as a verifyable and "objective fact".

Moreover, the "Quizzing.co.uk staff member" who established 123quiz.net did so, furtively, at a time he was working for quizzing.co.uk. He was privvy to all workings of Quizzing Ltd and at no point declared his building 123quiz. To say then that 123quiz.net was created only after a falling-out is a gross misrepresentation of the truth and seeks to hide the fact that the faithless action of said "staff member" was one of the reasons Quizzing.co.uk dispensed with his services.

In January 2005 the facility to see who had joined and when was suddenly, and inexplicably removed (as were promises about people who signed-up being sent a free CD containing thousands of quiz questions - no, mine never arrived, even though I submitted personal and private data on the basis I would be sent said disc!). Clearly one result of this facility being removed was it enabled the site owner, and those trumpeting his cause, to perpetrate the pretence that the site had been created as a response to the disagreement - rather than the truth, which was that the sneaky manner of its creation while the owner was in the confidence of Quizzing.co.uk's Directors had in large part precipitated it!

Bravo - a website created before the events that it is claimed let to its birth actually occuring, and history re-written. What value then can be placed on the veracity of anything Jw6aaa writes here?

Anyway, this whole sorry episode is another in a long line of attempts by jw6aa to damage Quizzing.co.uk's business and reputation. It is entirely objectionable that he should censor amendments to the article he does not like (or which are unpalattable to him). It is also calls into question Wikipedia's objectivity that they appear to be supporting his vendetta by ignoring all communications from a Quizzing Director over the last 30+ hours.

It should also be noted that jw6aa was instrumental in disrupting pages Quizzing.co.uk posted at the time of the 2005 World Quizzing Championships and pertaining to that event. Quizzing.co.uk were promised by Wikipedia, upon making a protest, that he (jw6aa) would receive a warning about it. One wonders if this promise was honoured?

'Commissioner' - joined 123quiz.net as a member in August 2004

I've never denied that 123Quiz.net was formed in early 2004 - how could I? A lot of people think it was later because that is when they were first aware of it. I build lots of web sites, it's my job. 123Quiz.net was initially a web site with a bit more scope than QuizPlayers.com and I made it with a view to linking them up and made sure it didn't tread on the toes of Quizzing.co.uk . The fact that I didn't tell you about it is irrelevant - I was told (by a director of Quizzing) at about the time the Quizzing directors became aware of it that I wasn't obliged to let them know about it. I wasn't banned as a result of it, the idea that I am banned because of 123Quiz.net is a red herring.
At no point have I ever engaged in unethical acts to further 123Quiz.net as a result of my involvement/insider knowledge from Quizzing.co.uk . To say or imply otherwise is a lie.
By banning people unfairly, Quizzing.co.uk do a pretty good job at damaging their own business and reputation.
I am not censoring things I do not like, I am trying to keep the article NPOV. My actions have always been explained on here whereas those of the IP addresses that insert POV vandalism/blank the page have not.
Regarding the 2005 WQC pages disruption, I am fascinated as to what you're talking about. What am I supposed to have done? Jw6aa 01:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You claim that QUIZZING ban people unfairly, surely that is a POV? Why won't you declare that interest on the article? Presumably you would not object if the directors put their version of NPOV about 123quiz up on this site --AndyW195.93.21.36 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Quizzing ban people unfairly" - this is indeed a POV, my POV. I've not gone and written this into the article as the article should be neutral. This is the talk page. If you think I've put my POV in the article, feel free to let me know where. I have reverted changes to the article that remove legitimate sections without discussion, and changes that are blatant NPOV violations. I declare that my interest on the article is in keeping it NPOV. Wikipedia has an NPOV policy, and this article should not be an exception. Jw6aa 18:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Competitor edits

Irrespective of the fact what is true and what not and more fundamental is the following question: does Wikipedia allow people from rival organisations to repeatedly / incessantly change the article about a competitor? Can any of the real Wikipedia moderators give an answer to that one? —This unsigned comment is by StevenDC (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 March 2006.

You think they shouldn't be allowed to edit it? WP:Not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox may be of some use in answering your question. I am not personally involved with the subject, but I do have knowledge of the subject. Let me know if/where I've allowed any of the negative POV I have of the subject influence the article in any way that makes it more negative than if it was neutral (I keep asking this). An advert seems to get pasted in when those personally involved with the subject edit it (this is all done via an IP though, presumably with a view to distancing themselves and claiming the edits to be those of a neutral observer). The insistence on turning the article into an advert does seem to have slowed in the past couple of days though, so that's good news. Jw6aa 22:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


I'd rather receive an answer from a Wikipedia moderator than from Jw6aa, the very person who incessantly changes this article. Your link says nothing about people changing articles on competitors. I seems a bit odd this would be allowed and if it is allowed that it is accepted when done so regularly. --StevenDC 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia moderators, no such 'official' positions exist at this level. You probably mean Administrators (I'm not one, to be clear), trusted and experienced users who for this reason are also likely to do moderating work, though anybody can do that.
An article about a company is not owned by them, or by anyone, for that matter. If competitors weren't allowed to edit, Wikipedia would quickly turn into a business directory. No self-promotion, advertising, defamation, libel and slander, the usual editing rules stand for all sides and all editors. The Wikimedia Foundation should have no need to intefere with the usual dispute resolution process unless for legal reasons, and this article doesn't seem that hopeless yet. Femto 13:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this very sensible reply Femto. I agree that the editing rules stand for all sides and not only for the people involved in Quizzing. It would be very strange if every competitor was free to make any change they like and the people who know it best could do nothing to rectify the situation. I suggest that both the people from Quizzing as those from rival websites are discouraged to make changes. --StevenDC 21:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement

How does "The first publicised indication of the 'disagreement' did not manifest itself until October 2004 whereas 123quiz.net was on-line at least as early as July 2004" sit with "There is also a rival organisation formed in early 2005 after two people were banned from QUIZZING events"? It seems to me that neither quizzing.co.uk nor 123quiz.net merits inclusion in the Wikipedia purely as a website - they can only be of note as organising bodies. Could we leave opinions on the disagreement out of it and agree some form of words which describes how they came into existence? Puh-leeze? Life's too short for this back-and-forth business... -- Ian Dalziel 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] response

The Quizzing.co.uk site is very busy and doesn't mention 123quiz at all. The 123quiz one only has one bit that's got anything recent in it and all it seems to do is slag off Quizzing and the people who run Quizzing. If jw6aa owns 123quiz, he definitely isn't objective and shouldn't be writing wikipedia pages on his much bigger competitor. It looks to me that he and the other guy Davidbod are just a couple of jokers trying to cause trouble —This unsigned comment is by 88.107.131.120 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 March 2006.

This really has nothing to do with the subject under discussion - but for what it's worth the quizzing.co.uk has no mention of 123quiz.net only because any such post is immediately censored and removed from the site!

I don't know who this anonymous poster is - that's how it goes with anonymous posters, really - but "only has one bit that's got anything recent in it" is either mistaken or an out and out lie. I use both sites and both are very much alive. But, as I said before, what does that have to do with the price of fish? If Wikipedia entries are justified it is because these are the organising bodies of national competitions - can we frame an entry, or entries, on that basis? -- Ian Dalziel 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Please show me where I've not been objective. Show me where I've caused/tried to cause trouble. Show me where Davidbod has caused/tried to cause trouble. Your statements about 123Quiz.net are absurd. The reason there is information about Quizzing on 123Quiz but no information about 123Quiz on Quizzing is free speech. (Quizzing censor any mention of 123Quiz on their site as is their right) Jw6aa 23:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your site slags them off. They don't slag you off. You are no objective Template:Substr:Unsigned

Show me where I have not been objective in the article. Jw6aa 23:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So when you delete posts it is freedom of speech and NPOV, when quizzing do it it is censorship. You f****** hypocrit!--maxthescouse81.179.71.199 23:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Femto 13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

81.179.71.199 23:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)--81.179.71.199 23:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What posts have I deleted? Jw6aa 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

The following was placed in an edit summary. "As the title of this page is quizzing.co.uk, I fail to see why a website owner with a very small presence and a very big grudge should be piggybacking his site on it." It wasn't even me that placed that information on the page, look at the edit history. Your change was not discussed here, and you (86.130.214.85) are censoring legitimate information. The page wasn't perfect, but it's not for you to censor. Jw6aa 23:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your antepenultimate post jw6aa I'd be interested to see examples as well. I'm fed up with Quizzing's irrelevant comments. Show some evidence of where jw6aa has been biased or not objective 'IN THIS ARTICLE'. I'll be waiting a long time I think. We should be discussing this article and nothing else. Ep6ac 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Ep6 - Exhibit A - Use of the word "their" in front of "their world championships" and "their rankings". In this context that casts doubt over their validity, so can you demonstrate alternate rankings or world xhampionships? --ScouserMax81.179.71.199 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Such competitions and lists organised by a limited company that bans people with no transparent process are not valid, and they are "their" because of this. The presence of alternatives is irrelevant, and the absence of "their" gives the impression that Quizzing/IQA are a governing body rather than limited companies. Jw6aa 00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But is it your job as the owner of a rival website to alter this page? I suggest that ALL involved parties leave this article alone and leave it up to others to change it, to remove irrelevant info and to add relevant data, as they see fit. If there is a chance it will be used as an advert, it will be quickly altered by other Wikipedians if the page is visited regularly. And if it isn't visited regularly, well then there's no need to make a fuss anyway. --StevenDC 23:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to keep Wikipedia NPOV whether particular pages are visited regularly or not. I think the scenario you describe would result in POV IP address edits turning the page into an advert, don't you? I don't think that would be good for Wikipedia. Please show me where I have been biased though! Jw6aa 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In reply to ScouserMax the use of 'their' is because it is their championships which they organise and have ranking points for. 'The' suggests that it is official, when it is just a private company who are running a competition and calling it whatever name they choose too. Why can't you see this? Ep6ac 23:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"their" implies that there is more than one rankings or more than one world championships. Please demonstrate these alternatives, or i will report you to wikipedia for POV Vandalism--Scousermax81.179.71.199 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not, the lack of "their" implies that they are official and run by governing bodies, not limited companies. The POV vandals are those removing the instances of "their". Jw6aa 00:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Scousermax, why can't you see that "their" implies that they are official and run by governing bodies? This is easily my biggest gripe. I think Quizzing.co.uk running a European and World quiz championship is great but wikipedia must record this accurately. QUIZZING ARE NOT THE GOVERNING BODY OF QUIZ. Ep6ac 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:86.130.214.85 / User:81.179.71.199

To the above users, please discuss your changes here first. Jw6aa 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So we all discuss things, but only things that you approve of gets posted? How does this differ from Censorship then jw6aa?--max81.179.71.199 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to discuss. Jw6aa 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I am regarding changes made by User:81.179.71.199 [6] as vandalism as they are undiscussed changes and non-NPOV as they suggest official status of an organisation that is a limited company, not a governing body. Please discuss your changes here. Jw6aa 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:86.130.214.85's refusal to discuss changes is noted [7] Jw6aa 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested replacement paragraph

Users including User:86.130.214.85 continue to remove information about the dispute with which quizzing is involved without discussion here. [8] The following is a suggested replacement paragraph produced as a result of differences highlighted earlier in this talk. Please let me know your view. Some users seem to think it shouldn't be mentioned (without discussion here). I believe it is appropriate to the subject and that to remove reference to dispute is to censor and deny the article relevant information. I think that almost everyone that has removed the paragraph has done so as someone directly involved with Quizzing.co.uk or on their instruction and that as a result the article is experiencing pro-subject POV bias. I don't think it's perfect, and I didn't write the original version. Feel free to comment.

The UK quiz scene is notoriously contentious with several bodies fighting for control of it. Quizzing is no exception having been born out of a disagreement with Trevor Montague's (now dormant) British Quiz Association in September 2002. In turn, since 2004, Quizzing has been the subject of a dispute with its former webmaster that has resulted in banning, threats of legal action, involvement of the police and heated discussion on 123Quiz.net [9]. The two organisations now hold rival quiz events in the UK.

Jw6aa 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems unnecessarily accusing to me. Perhaps we could start with a bare article and add to it, with each side having equal right to veto on the suggestions? Femto 13:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree it sounds unnecessarily accusing and I support Femto's suggestion.--StevenDC 21:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to have any mention of 123quiz under this topic. If someone were to set up an entry for it, then this stupidity may come to an end. It would also be nice if some of the protagonists acted their age instead of behaving like five year old children. —This unsigned comment was added by 86.132.213.145 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 March 2006.

I don't agree. I don't think any details of the disagreement belong here, but Quizzing's claim to be the UK's organising body should be balanced at least by a link to an entry for 123quiz. -- Ian Dalziel 08:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
An organisation whose most successful event has only attracted 25 people, hardly warrants a mention anywhere. The site, which is wholly owned by CensorJones, has only managed to get 800 posts in the 3 months since its mysterious disappearance, so that doesn't warrant a mention anywhere either.

Quizzing works with other bodies around the world to run the European and World Quizzing Championships and the British events they run feed into this, making them the UK's organising body.

The setting up of the article on Quizzing.co.uk by two of Quizzing's rivals serves no purpose other than to do Quizzing down and attempt to promote CensorJones's site off the back of his rival.

If it's OK to link to 123quiz from this page, why is there no link to quizmail or to any of the other quiz organisations?

I see no reason why there should not be such links. -- Ian Dalziel 10:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This article looks fine as it stands. It is about QUIZZING, not other groups. If you want to mention other orgs then set up "UK QUIZZING scene" or somrthing similar--Portlius Maximus195.93.21.36 16:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I see yet again Censor Jones has decided what should and should not be in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.76.205 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2 May 2006.

I have merely reverted phrasing designed to turn the page into an advert. Jw6aa 00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

HOw is replacing "their" (censor jones put those quotes in) with either A or THE, an advert? If Censor Jones can show that their is ANY other quiz world championships then please do so. Otherwise this is Censor Jones increasingly being a POV Vandal who insists on having the last word.~~Portlius~~

As discussed previously in this talk page, that isn't the point. "the" implies that they are official and run by governing bodies, not limited companies. Jw6aa 13:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

QUIZZING events are sanctioned by the British Quiz Association so they are official

[edit] Get a life

What a shame that CensorJones has so little going on in his life that he feels the need to constantly stick his non-neutral oar into this discussion.

Interesting to note that CensorJones took down many links to the national quiz rankings from this page claiming that they changed too often to be included, when he has now taken these rankings and has put them on to his own site claiming copyright of them. This is a clear attempt to pass Quizzing's events off as his.

He also appears to be moving links to Quizzing on other pages and is putting links to his own failing website at the top of pages instead and Quizzing's at the bottom.

Will Jones - you are a thief. Go and get a life.

I look forward to your boyfriend with his'n'his matching user names immediately defending you.

Show me where I have been non neutral. Show me where I have done this link moving you describe. If I was trying to pass Quizzing's events off as mine, why would I refer to them as Quizzing's events? I have not taken Quizzing's rankings, I have just recorded some event results.
This is a personal attack. Jw6aa 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You have refered to the events as being quizzing events in a manner that makes it sound like they are just quiz events and have written copyright to your own failing website and have failed to acknowledge the owners of the events - I don't see any links to their site from the rankings you have ripped off. The results and the events are not yours. They are the intellectual property of Quizzing Ltd. You are, therefore, a thief. 'Passing Off' and theft of intellectual property is a criminal activity.

As the owner of a failing site that is desperately attempting to piggy-back off of Quizzing's success, you have no right to amend an article on Quizzing.co.uk. You are completely non-neutral and have grudges against both Quizzing Ltd which would not make you a Director and one of the company's directors.

You seem to feel the need to control everything. Quizzing.co.uk is nothing to do with you.

Go and get a life.

I've just made a minor amendment to point out that quizzing.co.uk has over 31,000 registered users, who have made over 120,000 posts.

Ok, I have added a list of organisers so people can see that where I have used the word Quizzing, it means the events are run by Quizzing Ltd. I have never claimed the events are mine, how could I, it is just a list of results. Please explain the Wikipedia policy that says I "have no right to amend an article on Quizzing.co.uk", or indeed explain how any non-NPOV I may have has affected my contributions to this article. You are making judgements based on who I am, not on my contributions. If I did not edit this article, it would rapidly become an advert for Quizzing Ltd filled with pro-Quizzing POV. It is supposed to be NPOV. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Jw6aa 15:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You and a friend created the article on Quizzing Ltd here. You refered to Quizzing as being tyrannical and clearly just intended to cause trouble for Quizzing and create an article to piggy-back your own website from. You do not have permission to use Quizzing Ltd's statistics or results.

We note that you already have a page for Quizzing's next results. What a shame you don't get your own results up as quickly as you steal other people's. If you steal Quizzing's results again you will be reported to the Police. You do not have permission to use the results and you certainly do not have permission to try to pass them off as being part of your dismal 'empire'.

Your definition of advertising appears to be 'an opinion that differs to yours'.

The original article actually said: "The UK quiz scene is notoriously tyrannical" not what you are saying. Jw6aa 15:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that, having started this spat by trying to rubbish your rivals and promote yourself, you are now attempting to reinvent yourself as the self-appointed divine keeper of Wiki neutrality, since you have been called on your original politically motivated creation of this page.

The fact remains that you are trying to make trouble. You have no place writing an article on your business rival and you are certainly not the Wiki Police.

Why don't you concentrate on your own business instead of constantly trying to disrupt the activities of other people. And do stop trying to claim that you have done no wrong.

Go and get a life.

I didn't start this spat. Please show where I haven't been neutral (I think I've asked this over a dozen times). I have never claimed to be the Wiki Police. It's very simple, the page shouldn't be an advert, and it should be NPOV. Please show where I have tried to make trouble, is this "trouble" that I am making my trying to stop the page becoming an advert? Jw6aa 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Once again Censor Jones defines anything he does not like as an advert. Once again I point out that you have failed to answer my claim to show where there are ANY other UK quiz rankings or Quiz World Championships. Once again you ignore this. Either you are autistic or you just ignore anyhting you don;t like. You started this spat by trying to rubbish a business rival who has banned you from their events, and now it has backfired you try to claim neutrality.~~Portlius~~

Show me where I've not been neutral. The use of "the" has been used in the article to try to make events and rankings that are not official sound as though they are. They are not official because Quizzing Ltd is not a governing body. You are missing the point. Jw6aa 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You run a rival organisation. You have no place starting or editing a piece about your rivals. If the rankings are not official, why have you bothered to steal them in order to make them look like they are yours?

Get a life CensorJones.

Show me where I've not been neutral. You are making judgements based on who I am, not on my contributions. If I did not edit this article, it would rapidly become an advert for Quizzing Ltd filled with pro-Quizzing POV. It is supposed to be NPOV. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Jw6aa 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to it being anti-Quizzing, which is what you'd intended when you and your friend originally thought you were being clever by creating this page in the first place.

Now that the page exists, it should carry information on what Quizzing does and that includes the events run and the national rankings points. It is not for you, a business rival, to judge what should and should not be placed here.

People are getting tired of hearing you whining about being hard done by and pretending not to know what you've done wrong. Instead of causing trouble for other people, go and get on with your own business. You do not have a neutral 'POV', you have been banned by Quizzing from their site and events and they refused to make you a Director.

Get a life.

Show me how I intended it to be anti-Quizzing or made it anti-Quizzing. It would be bad for anyone to edit the article and make it biased. You seem to think I have done this, please show me where. Your argument is redundant because your problem is with me rather than my contributions to the article. "Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged." - I think it's reasonable to expect this applies to articles about your own company. It is not wrong for me to edit this article. It would be wrong if I filled it with non-NPOV, but I haven't. Jw6aa 18:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You really are a bore. My issue is with a business rival creating, editing and trying to take control of a page about a company that is nothing whatsoever to do with him. Butt out of other people's lives.

I didn't create the article. I read your issue as being with me trying to stop the page becoming an advert and that you would prefer it if you could make it an advert. I didn't think I was a rival anyway, I thought I was an irrelevance? I am not trying to interfere with the lives of other people, just contributing to Wikipedia. Jw6aa 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are the owner of a website that considers itself to be in competition with Quizzing.co.uk. You and your friend created this page in the first place. You'll find that at least two contributors to this 'discussion' have nothing to do with Quizzing Ltd. We are just bored with you thinking that you should be in control of everything. You are an irrelevance trying to make yourself seem important by attempting to direct a Wikipedia article about an organisation that you have a grudge against.

Had you put anything like this much energy into running your own site, it might have got somewhere.

Go and get a life.

Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks. Show me where any grudge I have has made an edit I have made to the article non-NPOV. You want me to not edit this article because you want it to become an advert. Wikipedia is not advertising. Jw6aa 19:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You and your friend created this page and tried to promote your own failing site on it. No one has asked for it to be an advertisement. Your definition of advertisement appears to be anything that you personally do not want to see on the page. An advertisement would have a call to action on it. Something encouraging people to join Quizzing.co.uk. It does not. It merely talks about the work the company does.

You do not want rankings published that would have linked to biographies of key players because you have stolen Quizzing Ltd's intellectual property around events and their rankings points. This would have been a service to quizzers and would have neatly expanded the whole area of quiz, promoting it ever more widely.

Why should someone with a grudge, who has stolen this IP be allowed to control Wikipedia?

The original article was misleading. Scroll back to the beginning to see what changes were made to right wrongs that you and your friend had posted.

You do not run Wikipedia. You own a site that you wish could rival Quizzing.co.uk. You started this page and are now moaning that it is an advertisement. Had you not wanted a page on Wikipedia that fully covered the work of Quizzing.co.uk then you and your friend should not have created it in the first place.

How terribly sad that your life has so little in it that you go to such lengths just to cause trouble for others.

The motivations for creating the page were the result of an articles for deletion discussion that resulted in the NPOV-ing of some information and the merger of some from another page - to make Wikipedia a better place. When left to the various IPs that you and people who appear to be your associates use, the page becomes a spew of inappropriate information / huge list of links / a pro-Quizzing POV advertisement. The bit about stealing ranking points I find baffling. If I shouldn't be allowed to edit this page, please provide evidence as to why. You have an issue with me personally, it doesn't appear to be with my edits apart from in the general sense that "I made them". You claim I am putting forward a non-NPOV, please provide evidence. In your penultimate paragraph, you claim I started this article, I did not. If the page becomes an advertisment, I think anybody has the right to complain or rectify that situation. Please stop the personal attacks. Jw6aa 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You claim the divine right of Wikipedia. You seem to think that what you say is automatically the authorised version. I hereby claim that right. Anything I put up is fact. Anything you put up will be removed for until you have proven me to be wrong.

As for your constant bleating about personal attacks - the owners of Quizzing Ltd take you and your friend setting up a page on your more successful rival in order to promote yourself, and your theft of their intellectual property to be personal attacks. Plus, of course, you encourage and allow your own site to be used to attack us both personally and professionally.

Hypocrite = someone who accuses others of doing what they themselves routinely do.

Please note that you do not own this or any other article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(comments containing personal attacks removed. make your points without them or not at all, if you have any.)

Who has anonymously removed these postings? jw6aa's policy is never to remove postings as it would (and I quote) 'be re-writing history'. I for one would like to see the comments made. I note also that the comments made about the paternity of a child earlier on have not been removed. I'd have thought that this should have been addressed before leaping to the defence of jw6aa. Perhaps we're all wrong and jw6aa really is the sole guardian of Wikipedia that no one else my question.

(comment containing personal attacks removed. writing a post without name-calling should not be impossible. further misuse of this talk page for attacking editors may lead to blocks from editing.)

You have now removed postings from at least 3 different individuals, all of whom think that jw6aa is out-of-order. Are other people's opinions not valid here, only we thought Wikipedia was a resource for all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.206.64 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. This is a talk page for those who wish to discuss changes to this encyclopaedia article. Currently it's being used to call people silly names and rant about editors acting in bad-faith with no evidence. The anonymous editors here have a choice: they can discuss the article with a view to improving it, or they can not discuss at all. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)


The argument here seems to me to now centre around whether or not jw6aa has the sole right to dictate what is on this page - and indeed, on any other quiz-related pages. There is a lot of additional information that could be added to quiz-related pages, but people have not bothered to add anything because they know that jw6aa in his self-appointed role as Guardian of Wikipedia will just remove or change them.

If every topic had a jw6aa involved, Wikipedia would never have developed.

As he is not privy to current activities in quiz, jw6aa is hardly an appropriate person to carry this role.

86.130.206.64 What Has Will Done Wrong? 86.130.206.64

I have looked at some of Jw's edits, and I believe he has acted to make the article appropriate for an encyclopaedia, by, for example, removing information that was in violation of Wikipedia is not a free web host. Now that a modicum of civility is settling on this page, perhaps you can show me what neutral, verifiable, encyclopaedic information Jw has removed. It would be best if you showed everyone diffs, like these: [10]. You can get these by going to Special:Contributions/Jw6aa and clicking the 'diff' buttons. Copy the url of the relevant diff here. Such evidence is needed to support accusations of bad faith. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


OK. It will take a while though. 86.130.206.64 What Has Will Done Wrong? 86.130.206.64

Take a while, the sky isn't going to fall tomorrow :-). --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been lots of comments made that the World Quiz Championships and the British Quiz Championships can not be regarded as official because they are run by a limited company and not by a governing body. However, it is enormously to the credit of Quizzing Ltd that these events exist in the first place. Since the BQA disappeared, no one else has tried to run events on such a large scale. If any other organisation had even attempted to do anything similar, then there may be a case for arguing the official nature of these championships. However, in the absence of anything else, these championships are de facto the official championships.

<<With respect Sam that is not the issue, it is that JW6 has taken on himself to be the final editor on this page, and that at one point he was only allowing edits that he approved of. He has a clear conflict of interest as owner of rival websites, one of whom has been accused by QUIZZING of theft of intellectual property, and if this was a more conventional media he would be expected to declare an interest. Bear in mind this whole spat started because, in the opinion of supporters of QUIZZING, jw6 attempted to put a negative spin on the article with words such as "tyrannical" and using quotation marks to weaken statements. Sam, you are suggesting that the burden of proof is on other contributors to prove jw6 wrong. Can I then assume that the same burden of proof is placed on jw6 (or indeed anybody) to edit/remove other contributors? This is the question that jw6 has failed to answer.~~Portlius~~>>

How have I taken it on myself to be the final editor on this page? Surely each edit should be assessed on its merits, and this is exactly what I've done. I haven't denied I run a web site you consider to be a rival, but you should explain how my edits to the page have been non-NPOV - The edits, not the editor. As stated before, the word "tyrannical" was used to describe the UK quiz scene, not the subject of this article. It wasn't me that said it anyway, but if this talk page is anything to go by I think you'd agree it's pretty accurate. In response to previous comments, I haven't censored anything on this page, nor have I asked anyone else to censor anything on this page. Jw6aa 13:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an article that's sadly lacking because jw6aa's actions have effectively prevented anyone else from adding to it (same can be said for other quiz-related articles too). People can clearly see that anything that gets put up here will be scrutinised by jw6aa who will then pass his judgment and inevitably delete or moderate it. It's certainly put me off posting anything. Why waste the time doing it, only to be faced with then having to argue about the merits of it with jw6aa? People will completely lose the will to live if they have to waste hours defending everything they do to jw6aa. In short, and in my opinion, he has strangled the whole area of Wikipedia covering quiz.

I am putting together a catalogue of what jw6aa's meddling has 'achieved'. Firstly, and most importantly I feel, is that this whole argument has come about because jw6aa and his friend moved Quizzing Ltd out of the main quiz page and annexed them. How he can now complain that it is an advertisement is beyond me. He and his friend created this page.

I will post all of my findings when I have finished going through everything. What a waste of my time. There are at least four people now posting to say that they do not agree with jw6aa, yet we still have to defend our position against him.

86.130.206.64 What Has Will Done Wrong 86.130.206.64

"jw6aa's actions have effectively prevented anyone else from adding to it" - this is not true, I have edited or reverted when edits have been non-NPOV / advertising / inappropriate. If you don't want your contributions to be edited, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, the same is true for me. A lot of people want to turn the article into an advert / pro-Quizzing POV article / spew of links / mass of inappropriate information. Anyone can edit Wikipedia to stop this kind of thing. Your problem seems to be that people (including me) don't want the article turned into an advert or the things mentioned above. How did I or my friend move "Quizzing Ltd out of the main quiz page and annexed them"? Please provide evidence. The page can easily become an advertisement regardless of who created the page - this is called editing. (speculation on motives removed) Jw6aa 14:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
All the complaints I have seen have come from IP addresses. They could be from 10 different people, but are far more likely to come from one. (And please, no more speculation on who is working for whom, from anybody.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many people discussing this off-line and at least 4 posting here now. 86.130.206.64 What Has Will Done Wrong? 86.130.206.64

By trying to imply here, by his edits, that Quizzing.co.uk and the IQA do not run properly accredited events ("their British Championships", for example) he denegrates the achievements of all the hundreds of people who support such events. "Trine Alborg, Kevin Ashman, Olav Bjortomt, Anustup Dutta, Pat Gibson, Arul Mani, Lauri Naber, Nico Patyn, Indrek Salis et al, your achievements are as nothing. Why? cos Will Jones implies as much on Wikipedia. Thanks Will, I'm sure Kevin will be delighted to hear he is NOT British, European and World Champion; and that England were not European team champions in 2004/05!".

Didn't hundreds of people travel to Tallinn for the European Championships in November 2005? Does this manifestation of support not carry infinitely more weight than the opinion of one disgruntled individual? And if, if as Will Jones would like to imply here that these events are NOT accredited, then why oh why does he list them as the British, European and World Championships etc. when he rips off IP belonging to Quizzing and the IQA and publishes them on his own website, claiming copyright!?! I am staggered! ~~Contra Hypocrita, NOT Portlius~~


There are many people discussing this off-line and at least 4 posting here now. Isn't your assertion poking fun at us and defending jw6aa? Hardly a neutral stand point.86.130.206.64 What Has Will Done Wrong? 86.130.206.64

Once again jw6 ignores questions and forgets his own postings on this discussion page. At the top "I am fixing this advert" (my paraphrase), in the middle "no edits without discussion" (again my paraphrase) and as a specific allegation when he removed six links to individual genre stats with no explanation. To counter his latest post, all the Pro jw6 posters are close personal friends of his~~Portlius~~ (a different Ip address to What has Will done wrong)

Oops, citing Sam, "All the complaints I have seen have come from IP addresses. They could be from 10 different people, but are far more likely to come from one." I think if you want to look for phantoms you should look to a certain website which claims to have grown by thousands and yet the number of people actually posting on their discussion board would appear to be able to fit in a single phone booth! So, as for Will Jones' article here taking a snide pot-shot saying, they, Quizzing.co.uk "regard themselves as the largest of the organisations with a claim to running British Quiz both in terms of membership and participants." I'm sorry but it is 100% fact. Look at the figures of 'real' people who turn out to events! ~~Contra Hypocrita~~

Removing excessive links is standard procedure on Wikipedia. Lots of links to different pages on the same site are pretty unnecessary. What questions am I ignoring? I am not trying to denigrate the achievements of anyone. I run a web site that hails the achievements of quizzers including several mentioned above, so suggesting I denigrate is absurd. Quizzing and IQA events are not official because they are not run by governing bodies, they are private companies who ban people without transparent procedure (as is their right). I was under the impression the "regard themselves as the largest of the organisations with a claim to running British Quiz both in terms of membership and participants." was written by Mark Labbett. I don't know Samuel Blanning and I haven't censored anything on this page or got anyone else to do so. Anything I have done to the article has been either to make Wikipedia a better place (stopping it becoming non-NPOV / an advert). Jw6aa 18:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You have missed the point. What's being asked here is what gives you the right to decide what stays and what goes, what's an ad and what isn't? Links to your own site appear on quiz pages (and on this one for a time), how is this not advertising? You run a rival web site and should not be deciding what get's said about your competitor.

What gives me the right to decide? I am an editor on Wikipedia, and if an edit needs to be made, in accordance with the Wikipedia rules I am allowed to edit it. You say I am not neutral, I believe that my edits are. You have yet to explain a specific problem with my edits and your objection appears to be with me. Legitimate comment / appropriate links are not advertising, they are legitimate content of an encyclopedia article. If I should not be editing the article, please explain why. Again the problem appears to be with who I am not my edits. Owners of web sites are not banned from editing articles on their rivals. It is the editing of articles about a person when you are the subject or your company when you are involved with it is what is frowned upon. Jw6aa 22:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Quiz Association

What is the status of the BQA? 157.203.42.40 says "since the BQA disappeared", yet the article currently says "They have been sanctioned by the British Quiz Association to run their official competitions". -- Ian Dalziel 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is only one person who seems to think that the WQC and the BQC are not official. I don't see anyone else supporting his view. ~~Margery Kempe's alter ego~~

The BQA still exists, it just doesn't do anything in its own right at the moment. It even had charitable status before jw6aa meddled there too by contacting the Charities Commission. 86.130.206.64 The Hardest Working Man In Quiz 86.130.206.64

What is its status, then? How is it constituted, who are on its executive, what is its democratic structure? How did it confer its authorisation on Quizzing.co.uk? I've a BQA membership card here, how can I influence the policy of the BQA?

Who are you and why are you attempting to move this conversation away from the issue? The issue is that jw6aa keeps changing anything anyone puts on this page.86.130.206.64 What Has Will Done Wrong? 86.130.206.64

I, sport, am Ian Dalziel. Are you 86.130.206.64? How have you the gall to post under an IP address and ask what MY credentials are? You haven't grasped how Wikipedia works, have you?

The BQA is on this article as a reference. I believe it to be defunct, so I am going to remove it until someone substantiates it. Your imaginary friend is not a sufficient supporting reference. -- Ian Dalziel 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You can see this is untrue from looking at the edit history of the article. Jw6aa 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting Back On Topic

Why does jw6aa appear to have authority to decide what gets said on this page when he is the owner of a rival website?

I am STILL going through all of the changes he and his friends have made to all things quiz on Wikipedia. 86.130.206.64 What Has Will Done Wrong? 86.130.206.64

The British Quiz Association is alive and well, but rather than take my word for it I will pass this discussion on to the trustees and see if one of them will write on this discussion.~~Portlius~~

[edit] External links

We currently have eight external links, *all* to the same website. Surely this can be rationalised? -- Ian Dalziel 13:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a link to quizzing itself and then the seven main statistics. jw6 objected to large amounts of data being dumped onto wikipedia, but links to stats do not take up much space surely? QUIZZING run an event every month and their stats are usually updated within 24 hours.~~Portlius~~

Is jw6aa going to explain why he still has data and statistics on one of his websites which is (C) Quizzing.co.uk and the IQA (format and database rights also vest with the owners, Quizzing.co.uk) when he has been written to concerning it? Moreover, and for present purposes, he sullies Wikipedia by putting links in Wikepedia to his site which contains the stolen IP and data. What is wikipedia going to do aout this? Is he preparing a statement to be made to the Police when they get round to talking to him about it? Who does one compain to at Wikipedia about such a thing? ~~Contra Hypocrita~~

[edit] Copyright

Wikipedia’s page concerning ‘External Links’ has the following to say:

“External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. … linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us ...”

It would seem in this instance the person linking to the site (i.e. jw6aa) and the individual violating copyright in the first place are one and the same! If, as he (jw6aa) seems to claim on this page, he knows Wikipdia policy so well, then he darned well will have known he was breaching Wikipedia editorial policy by putting links into (his own) copyright violating site.

This all demonstrates to me that jw6aa is not a fit person to pass judgement on others since he is as guilty as hell himself. And he is certainly not fit to edit this and related articles. His cover is blown and his machinations exposed as (... well one could use some strong words here), anyway I think he should back-off, or be told to clear off by Wikipedia officials, so far as this and related pages are concerned. He has utterly degraded Wikipedia's reputation in my eyes in 1. being allowed to create and maintain a page about a rival organisation, and then 2. trying to tap into readers' interest concerning his rival and their activities by slyly directing traffic to his own, copyright violating site(s). Such behaviour is utterly parasitic and dishonest!

~~Mad Carew~~

[edit] Enough already

Would the involved parties who edit from IP addresses please create an account, and perhaps consider to re-sign their respective edits on this page? It's hard to keep track who accuses who.
Copyright claims notwithstanding (could you provide links to both the original pages and their infringements, and why does it still matter?) — in general, I put at least equal faith in a business' rivals to keep an article neutral as in its owners. If they can't come to an agreement as to what should be on this page, reduce it to the lowest common denominator that is acceptable to both and leave the real editing to others. Wikipedia is neither a promotional nor anti-promotional platform:
The whatlinkshere isn't exactly overwhelming, and there's a conspicuous lack of interest from third party editors to contribute to this page. The umbrella group International Quizzing Assoc. and the parent company Quizzing Ltd. are redlinks. Surely an encyclopedia should mention these first before more detailed topics like this get created. Likewise, there's the already AfD'd and redirected National Quiz Circuit, also British Quiz Association (only contributor User:Portlius, and which reads "run on behalf of the BQA by quizzing.co.uk as they have the necessary personnel and skills" Neutral indeed…)
Nobody else except those with a personal or commercial interest in it appear to have need for this wild growth of "quizcruft" articles. I've half a mind to replace this page with a redirect to quiz, its sole purpose so far was to attract semi-commercial promotional content, and bickering. Femto 14:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to Femto (see above).

First-off Quizzing.co.uk did not set up this page. Its rival, in the person of jw6aa set it up, to attack it and to create links also to promote HIS site. Please grasp that - its quite evident if you follow through what's been written here. ~~Mad Carew~~

While I agree that the initial content with its 'tyrannical quiz scene' and 123quiz.net link was of questionable notability, a simple look at the page history shows that "in the person of jw6aa" is not true. On the other hand, an AOL address that continuously removes the critical content isn't really kosher either. Femto 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, re copyright: In accordance with the advice on the Wikipedia pages concerning copyright infringement I wrote to Wikipedia and provided links to the pages which 1. were copyright and which 2. infringed that copyright. I was advised it was OK for me to delete those links, and was pointed to Wikipedia's policy on same. For information, I have received replies from Wikipedia volunteers Steve Dunlop and Sarah Kendrick. I'm sure they will confirm the substance of what I say.

Now, in answer to the question 'why does copyright infringement still matter?' (sighs with incredulity) ... well 1. the owners of the IP in question are rather upset about it (and I think its for them and the Police to adjudge if they are hurt by it and not you) 2. the placing of links to his own site, containing infringed copyright material, by the very guy who keeps editing this page surely shows he's not fit to do that (edit I mean) and 3. because its against Wikipedia link policy!!!!! Is that enough reason? Surely we can't have one lot of people telling us on here that Wikipedia policy DOES matter (and then want to edit things out) then have another lot of Wikipeople telling us it does not. Let's have some consistency here, please! ~~Mad Carew~~

Far as I see, copyright claims never were an object in the earlier edit war, and were only brought into the debate long after the 123quiz.net link was deleted, and the personal attacks started. If 123quiz.net infringes your copyright, sue them. Wikipedia has nothing to do with this feud. As far as Wikipedia policies are concerned, Jw6aa has done little that would warrant a ban from this page, and remains at least as fit to edit as other participants who have shown more objectionable behavior. Femto 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Then again, one wonders if Wikipeople are now looking for an excuse to shut down this page because the truth is now out and jw6aa has been exposed for what he is!? I think it should now remain, this cr*p should not be allowed to be swept under the Wikicarpet!

~~Mad Carew~~ (signing my contribution as permitted by Wikipedia policy, if it still applies in this case!)

There have been signatures of ~~Portlius~~, ~~Contra Hypocrita~~, ~~Contra Hypocrita, NOT Portlius~~, ~~Margery Kempe's alter ego~~, ~~Mad Carew~~, The Hardest Working Man In Quiz, and What Has Will Done Wrong?, besides several IP addresses. Excuse me if some of us still are unclear about how many people there really are. Femto 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If the good Portlius would check his talk page, I explained a couple of days ago how to use the four tildes. Odd that so many sockp <bksp> concerned individuals seem to be under the same misapprehension... -- Ian Dalziel 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just got back from a 48 hour trip to find Ian's useful tips. However I think in a nutshell it sums up the central thrust of the pro-QUIZZING contributors: namely the spin that is automatically put on a rival's actions or even inactions. This is why jw6 CANNOT be the main editor of this pagePortlius 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Femto writes: "If 123quiz.net infringes your copyright, sue them. Wikipedia has nothing to do with this feud. As far as Wikipedia policies are concerned, Jw6aa has done little that would warrant a ban from this page, and remains at least as fit to edit as other participants who have shown more objectionable behavior." So Wikipedia policy which says that, inter alia linking to a site which infringes copyright "sheds a bad light on us" is to be ignored?! Who gave you the authority to re-write Wikipedia policy? I'm sorry, but it seems like you are saying "it's one rule for us, and another rule for everyone else"! This is appalling. It does seem like Wikipeople are closing ranks and covering each other's backs even when they - in the person of jw6aa - blantantly flout Wikipedia's own rules. What a travesty, what stinking hypocrisy! And well done on ignoring completely the point that the Wikipedia volunteers I'd taken the trouble to complain to had encouraged me to act. ~~Mad Carew~~

I'll repeat if for you, slowly. Jw6aa is not the person who first added the link. Neither made Jw6aa any move to re-include it, other than in an edit war with IP addresses whose insistent reversions were considered vandalism by several people, not only by Jw6aa. Copyright claims were never mentioned in the course of these reversions, and the link is gone in any case. Since then, Jw6aa has edited this article once, to revert another IP that tried to sneak in contentious changes as minor edits, directing them to the talk page. You, Sir, are delusional. Femto 14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Delusional, moi? Sorry old chap but if you look at the history page for the article on Pat Gibson you will clearly see "00:39, 11 March 2006 Jw6aa (adding link)". Also, on the history of the page for Kevin Ashman you'll see jw6aa has been putting in links there also to his own site. Now tell me I am delusional. These were the dodgy links to the site owned by jw6aa with stolen IP which I referred to Wikivolunteers. Had you followed up the leads I gave you - i.e. had you bothered to contact the people I complained to (Steve Dunlop and Sarah Kendrick) and confirm what it was I had complanied about - then you would have seen I do indeed have a point. Please read what I said. You asked specifics and I gave you the courtesy of a reply, which you have now twice ignored. I'm sorry but I do not believe you are acting fairly in this regard.
Please note also I have registered. I am not now nor have I ever been a "sock puppet". Mad Carew 02:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It's nobody's job but yours to provide immediately usable evidence to your case. This page [11] and this [12]? In their current state? Which work do they infringe? I don't think that previously published competition outcomes as simple statements of fact are trade secrets, proprietary collections, or otherwise copyrightable creative work. Based on this you justify a disruptive edit war, personal attacks, and ask that Jw6aa is banned from all quizzing-related articles? Femto 12:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that so? You are obviously a copyright lawyer now. So you'd better tell the football authorities in the British Isles, all of whose fixtures etc. are copyright, and whose ownership is properly respected by the likes of the B.B.C. (the last named obtain a license to get permission to reproduce such 'simple statements of fact') that there's no point in claiming ownership of their IP.
e.g. "Reproduced under licence from Football DataCo Limited. All rights reserved. Licence no NEWMEDIA/BBCWEBCEE/63009a. Copyright © and Database Right The FA Premier League/The Scottish Premier League/The Football League/The Scottish Football League Limited 2005. All rights reserved. No part of the Fixtures Lists may be reproduced stored or transmitted in any form without the prior written permission of Football DataCo Limited."
Tell it also to Carling Opta and to the UK Government whose website devoted to intellectual property issues indicates otherwise. You could also tell the police that there's no such offense as "passing off" - i.e. ripping-off someone else's IP and then slapping your own copyright claim on it! In fact, why don't you just keep up this obfuscation while holding your eyes tight shut?! Mad Carew 13:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer. Anybody may point out copyright concerns and remove suspicious links. Jw6aa hasn't challenged any removal like that. The links are gone anyhow, far as I see no new links were included since then, and the matter is settled as far as Wikipedia's legal aspects are concerned. Present a legal ruling that shows Jw6aa violates your copyright. Beyond that, this rant remains of no relevance to this article. Femto 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

One person's "responsible editting" is another person's "POV Vandalism". By now it is obvious that both sides apply their spin/slant/defendable objectivity to basic facts. A case in point, 123quiz ran an event on the 6th which has not published its results. 123 would claim that they have been too busy, QUIZZING would claim that it is due to them having single figure attendancePortlius 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why repeated one-sided reverts are considered bad-faith. If consensus can't be found on the talk page, the article should remain in the state as it was before, respectively should be restored to it, which Jw6aa did, among other people. The discussion necessarily may include both business owners and business rivals, as well as neutral people who just want to build an encyclopedia.
If there's reason to assume the article was set up as an attack page and egregiously misrepresents quizzing.co.uk beyond all civilized editing, the owners can request to have it removed, though they can't impose any certain style of editing on Wikipedia. Femto 12:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem though femto, as I would claim that jw6 did exactly that to my contributions. And while consensus would be ideal, what concerned me that suddenly consensus was demanded to change (at the time) jw6's final edit.Portlius 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Which contributions and edit? Could you provide diff links from the edit history (those labeled "(last)")? Femto 12:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sad situation

This is a very sad situation isn't it. To state my identity, I am David Stainer, a UK quizzer who knows people on both sides of the dispute, including the above users Portlius (Mark Labbett), jw6aa (Will Jones), and ep6ac (Peter Ediss). I suspect I also know Mad Carew. I also have a broad (but by no means full) understanding of the main issues of dispute between the two parties. I have strived since the dispute began to maintain a position of neutrality between the parties, a position I aim to maintain.

The situation is sad because due to the turf wars being fought between Portlius and jw6aa (as principals for the disputing parties), certain Wikipedia pages connected with UK quizzing are not being regularly and properly updated. Can I suggest that with immediate effect Portlius, jw6aa and ep6ac undertake here not to contribute to the Quizzing page again, and to agree not to procure that any other individual does so on their behalf.

Can we also agree that no Quizzing.co.uk directors (i.e. Jane Allen and Chris Jones) nor Steve Kidd of 123Quiz also contributes: it is well-known and understandable that none of those individuals is perceived by the wider quizzing community as able to contribute a NPOV post to the topic because they are the parties to the dispute.

That might allow this page to begin developing under the auspices of members of neutrally-aligned members of the UK quizzing scene (such people do exist in great numbers), possibly including myself. That is all. Grecian 11:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the situation you describe wouldn't result in numerous anon IP / mysterious new users making pro-Quizzing POV edits. I think it's a good idea that people directly involved with something don't edit an article on it, but I think this can come unstuck if the situation described above happens. Now as in the past, I think that making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia should take precedence. I haven't edited the page in a while in the hope that it would be edited by people not involved in the dispute, so I would welcome any NPOV editing of it. Jw6aa 11:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the plan would rely on the good faith of both parties not to make non-NPOV edits under assumed identities/IPs. I don't think the vast bulk of the UK quiz community has any axe to grind one way or another really, and so outside of the people I've mentioned I would hope people would endeavour to be neutral. But, Will, whilst I have *some* sympathy for *some* of the points you've made on this (i.e. the talk page) I think it's dangerous to see yourself as the guardian of *any* page on Wikipedia, let alone one with which you're as closely and emotively associated as Quizzing. There's more than one truth to most things and Wikipedia's beauty is that slowly but surely it generally reflects that. But it won't be able to reflect that if one person sees themselves as the final factual arbiter for that page. Likewise, though, I would make it quite clear that I do not think Mark Labbett is an appropriate person to edit the Quizzing page any more than anyone else so closely connected with Quizzing would be. What it needs, as stated above, is both parties to step away and let more neutral parties step into the breach. If, as you hypothesise, pro-Quizzing loyalists started posting non-NPOV material, you should leave well alone and leave it to neutral individuals to edit the page i.e. those many people in the UK quiz scene who have tried to remain neutral in this dispute. Grecian 13:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, I haven't edited the page in a while in the hope that it would be edited by people not involved in the dispute. On numerous occasions I have asked for evidence of non-NPOV edits on my part and am continually judged on who I am rather than my edits. I have never claimed to be the guardian of this or any page on Wikipedia, but I am not banned from editing it, although it is clearly better if people not involved directly in the dispute edit, they normally don't. Plus, Quizzing are prone to viewing people not involved in this dispute (Femto, Samuel etc.) as anti-Quizzing to justifying their continued editing of the page. I think we broadly agree, but if the page continues to become an advert, I don't think that's good for Wikipedia. Jw6aa 13:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm agreed re the adverts point. I think you'll have to accept Will that "who you are" is reason alone for you not to be editing this page, in the same way that who Portlius is is reason enough for him not to, regardless of the actual nature of your or his edits. I am going to have a think about the Quizzing.co.uk page but I won't be amending anything quickly.

Well said David. I think it's time to end the slanging match. ~~John Wilson~~

Thank you John. After a few emails this afternoon, I shall clarify precisely that I agree with Will insofar as he has stated that it is not appropriate for Quizzing.co.uk past and present directors to be editing the Quizzing.co.uk entry. If he has not said that above (and a quick scan suggests maybe Davidbod made the comment), then I withdraw my comment that I agree with Will in some of what he says. Similarly I agree with what Mark Labbett has said to the extent that he has pointed out that Will has no business acting as guardian of the Quizzing.co.uk Wikipedia page. That is all. Emphatically I do not agree with personal abuse that has been posted in this thread, whether it has been deleted or not. Grecian 18.10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guidelines that state that it is inappropriate to write about yourself in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Autobiography). I would tend to judge each edit on its merits as an article like this could obviously get to be anti-Quizzing if only people from organisations they consider to be rivals edited it, but I think it needs to be NPOV and not an advert for the subject. On being told I am acting as guardian of the page, I would point out that I do have a right to edit it (as do others), and ask that if my edits are anti the subject, could you please tell me which ones (I've asked this a lot). I haven't edited the article recently, and don't intend to do so much beyond vandalism and anything absurdly non-NPOV. I think it is a mistake to accuse me of bias based on who I am rather than my edits. Whilst I believe the editing of the article by people not connected to the subject to be a good thing, I think there will be a lot of pro-subject IP address / new user edits that will be orchestrated by people closely connected with the subject if this takes place. I consider their aim to be to stop anyone making edits (even if they are NPOV) if they don't agree with them. I think that the page is being controlled by people connected with the subject and that this should not be the case. Jw6aa 18:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I applaud the initiative taken by Grecian and am a little disappointed in the reaction of Jw6aa, although a consencus is probably possible. With people like Grecian and John Wilson following this page (and undoubtably many others), this should be enough certainty that any future POV edits would be removed swiftly. I agree with jw6aa comment that the page should not be controlled by people connected to the subject but fear jw6aa is very much one of those. So Grecian, I support your idea to ask all concerned parties not to alter this page (even if the changes are NPOV) and leave it to the multitude of neutral British quiz players to keep this page evergreen. StevenDC 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The page should not be, and will not be, controlled by anyone - this is Wikipedia. I don't see why anyone should be barred from making constructive edits to the page. -- Ian Dalziel 20:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely that it should not be controlled by anyone and certainly not by people connected to the subjects like the owners and jw6aa. StevenDC 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I am unsure as to what I have done to make you so offended by my actions, but whatever it is, I apologise. Jw6aa 22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Not offended jw6aa, I just feel that connected parties should not post. StevenDC 18:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


I have taken down a notice placed prominently on the main page which referred to a dispute between QUIZZING and 123quiz.net. I did so because I felt it was inappropriate for the page which is about QUIZZING, and because there are several ongoing disputes between QUIZZING and the members of 123quiz (not least of which is Steve Kidd of 123quiz launching a legal action for defamation against QUIZZING). I will demur to the neutral moderators long term on this.


My brief summary of this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portlius (talk • contribs).

Brief indeed... -- Ian Dalziel 08:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Very brief -as an AOL user my IP address is often placed on block thanks to the previous user <g> so I could not edit the above commentPortlius 09:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have substituted the term "registered users" with the term "registrations by their users". Many of Quizzing's users will have registered more than once for a variety of reasons.

It would be misguided to think that "31,000 registered users" represented 31,000 different individuals. The ease with which spammers can post on the site would indicate that registration is hardly a rigorous operation. Posted by 84.9.172.15, 20 May 2006

Fair enough, it is something most forum based sites have problems with, and apparently there is software which unscrupulous webmasters can boost their numbers with. I know of one moribund site with nearly 21,000 "members" but barely 1200 posts <g>Portlius 00:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Portlius you refer to the other site having nearly 21,000 members but I don't see them using these figures in the same dishonest way that Quizzing.co.uk. does. Jane uses her socalled "registered users" figure as a marketing tool to gain more advertising revenue. For instance in the recent Time Out interview she is quoted as saying,

"Our website has 30,000 members and is growing by 1,000 a month."

If that is not blatant deception I don't know what is?

Posted by 84.9.172.15, 21 May 2006


31000 members in 37 months equates to over 800 user registrations per month. There will be duplicate registrations and spammers, as indeed there will be on most such sites. For example I am an administrator on quizmail's site and there is normally two or three spams per day. So what blatant deception are you refering to ? Portlius 16:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion tag

Statement from a director of Quizzing.co.uk/Quizzing Ltd.

Wikipedia is often accused of carrying material which is inacurrate.

I have to say I find it laughable that the reason cited for this page being marked for deletion is that "one 'side' of the edit war consists of employees of the listed company." If Wikipedia would care to check its records and look at the complaints Quizzing Ltd. has lodged with them, it will be more than apparent that a director of the company petitioned for this page to be deleted shortly after it was created by an aspirant rival to Quizzing Ltd.! Having had that request turned down, we are now somewhat incredulous to find the page is now finally to be taken-down, i.e. now that the 'edit war' seems to have ceased and we, for one, have been happy to leave it to 'neutral parties' to keep the article's contents under review! Is it the case that the person who created the article, finding that their original aims have been frustrated, now wants to brush the whole thing under the carpet?!

In closing, I should add that we are grateful to the original author, albeit we do question his motives. We have seen an increase in our membership of several hundreds of people finding us thanks to this page - i.e. upon registering with us they have said Wikipedia was they place they first heard about quizzing.co.uk. Cheers, and well done!

Chris Jones aka wiseoldowls. 23 October 2006 Quizzing Ltd./Quizzing.co.uk/International Quizzing Assoc.

I would challenge the reasons for deleting this article as factually incorrect. The page was started by a disgruntled ex-contractor of QUIZZING and this has led to a defence of QUIZZING by the directors and supporters of that company, no employees have written this as QUIZZING has none.

In particular I found it a breach of natural justice that the ex-contractor, now a business rival, tried to use Wikipedia's rules to disbar anything that he disagreed with.

There has been no disagreement for over seven months and both parties appear to be equally dissatisfied with the page as it is, so perhaps it is time to remove the disputed neutrality tag.

[Let's give it a try. Removed. Femto 10:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)]

This whole episode only serves to highlight the achilles heel of Wikipedia, namely the anonymous nature of both poster and editor. "According to Wikipedia" is rapidly becoming something of a joke in the real world...

Mark Labbett/Portlius/ ex-director of QUIZZING (and fellow ex-committee member of the BQA alongside original poster Will Jones)

"The page was started by a disgruntled ex-contractor of QUIZZING"
This isn't true, please check the history.
"one "side" of the edit war consists of employees of the listed company."
This may be incorrect, but only on a technicality. The history of this page consists of people directly associated with the company trying to make the page a pro-Quizzing Ltd. advertisement and other wikipedia editors, some of whom are associated with organisations the company sees as rivals, trying to keep it an encyclopedia article (In my view).
I object to the removal of the disputed neutrality tag until such a time that the article is neutral. I don't know Justin Eiler, have never communicated with anyone on the adding of such a deletion tag, still believe the article reads like an advertisement. I expect the deletion tag was added by someone going through a Wikipedia backlog.

Jw6aa 13:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


I suppose y'all know that anyone can remove the WP:PROD tag currently inserted in the article, in which case the article will have to be taken to WP:AFD discussions if it is to be deleted. Tintin (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Tintin, I have done just thatPortlius 09:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

As I said above, I still dispute the neutrality of the article. Jw6aa 11:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


That is the whole point, one person's objective encyclopaedia entry is another person's subjective POV. Given that jw6aa remains banned sine die by QUIZZING it is difficult for him to claim that his edits are strictly objective Portlius 12:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where I've made subjective edits. Jw6aa 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't help wondering why Mr Jones bothers about this topic so much. If I were the owner of a site which over the last month has received an average of three posts a day, I think I would be more concerned with getting that up and running.

~~ John Wilson ~~

Please show me where I've made subjective edits rather than making things personal. Jw6aa 13:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where the article is not neutralPortlius 13:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It reads like an advert, censors legitimate comment and links eight times to the same web site. Jw6aa 13:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"reads like an advert" is a subjective opinion. As for "censors legitimate comment" is that not a subjective way of describing Wiki's policy of moderation and editing by all?

But the third point is relevant, if someone deems it to be a breach of Wiki guidelines I will replace the seperate genre links with a generic genre link.

Portlius 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To show compromise I have amalgamated the seven statistical links into just one as a gesture of compromise

Portlius 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a criticism section to help with the POV issues. Any time that anything critical about the company is mentioned in the article it gets removed - this is why it reads like an advert (my opinion, but not too controversial I think). People closely involved should avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where they have a conflict of interest. This is a Wikipedia guideline. I am told I should not edit the article as people regard me as having an interest in an organisation the company consider to be a rival, I am happy to avoid editing if the rules are also applied to those with a direct conflict of interest. Jw6aa 15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When I first started writing about this page anything positive about the company was removed, usually by jw6aa, so I think it is a bit cheeky for Mr Jones to claim the moral high ground here.

I think the more appropriate guideline is to stick generally to objective facts and, when an opinion or slant is placed on an area, that person should identify themselves rather than post anonymously.

It is inevitable that those with a direct interest and/or expertise are those most passionately concerned about how a page reads.

As an example, look how the friends and supporters of the Ingrams have modified the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" entry.

Portlius 15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When the article first started being edited by people associated with Quizzing Ltd, the page became an advert. It was filled with unformatted statistical data and anything negative was removed. This is not what Wikipedia is about. I have never posted anonymously. Jw6aa 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Before the supporters of QUIZZING started submitting the page was a slur conducted by a business rival. It is now a more balanced piece in that everybody is mildly dissatisfied. The unformatted data criticism is fair but that has been corrected with a link to an automatically updated webpage. In my opinion Jw6aa automatically removed anything positive. This is not what Wikipedia is about. I never posted anonymously

Portlius 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the original article [13] is less of an advert than the current version, not that it is perfect. Quizzing Ltd and it's supporters continually remove anything critical to keep the page an advert. Jw6aa 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You call it "less of an advert", I call it a hatchet job. Two POV's there, and both subjective. QUIZZING and it's supporters have challenged any subjective criticism and removed any attempt by Mr Jones and supporters to attach his own organisation on to this page.

Portlius 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Poster 195.36.21.36

The more I try to follow this discussion the more confused I become. I understand the Wikipedia policy of the anonymity of posters and would normally defend it.

What exactly is the Poster 195.93.21.36's interest in Quizzing.co.uk and who is he? In later posts he signs off as "Andrew Windlesham" or just "Andy W" but a Google search of that name reveals nothing.

Given his anonymity he does not seem to have any regard for the confidentiality of other posters when he refers to them by their real names. The main poster coming under his attack appears to be Jw6aa who comes across as exceptionally polite by comparison. I would go as far as to say Poster 195.93.21.36 is being antagonistic and even downright rude on this page. He appears to know the background of the others he is criticising referring to personal relationships between them.

It just seems wrong that a poster can do that.

~~ Ktewg ~~ 30th Oct 2006 (UTC)


Dear Ktewg. The last post of poster 195.93.21.36 was on March 17. Although his remarks were rather direct (to put mildly), the discussions about them has since long disappeared. IMHO no need to restart it all again so long after the facts. There's enough animosity as it is. StevenDC 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And indeed, I wonder who is hiding behind the name Ktewg.

~~ John Wilson ~~


Can someone please sort this chat page out. How are we meant to know what to edit on the page and revome the POV tag if the chat is a complete mess? Kjhf 11:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the chat and it seems Portlius has compromised. Taken the POW off. Kjhf 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Director Jane Allen's many Identities

Jane Allen Director of Quizzing.co.uk has used many identities and IP addresses on here.Her favourite cliches and figures of speech appear many times throughout the discussion and in the edit summaries to the article. "What a shame", "What a pity", "slag off", "I look forward to" and several others appear over and over again as well as the same level of personal attack against JW6aa. These figures of speech also appear under the postings of "Andrew Windlesham" yet "Andrew Windlesham" declares that he ( or she ) is just a friend of a Quizzing director with no financial interest in it. If this is another of Jane Allen's aliases then it is an attempt to deceive. Quizzing.co.uk also has it's own protective outer ring of share-holders on here. These will be well aware of Jane Allen's different identitities but will prefer instead to challenge the identity of an newcomer to the discussion. They are there to defend the interests of Quizzing.co.uk And indeed their own interests. Morgan4 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Morgan4Morgan4 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, another anonymous anti-quizzing saddo. Perhaps Mr/Ms Morgan4 would like to say which of those identities and IP addresses are Jane.

~~ John Wilson ~~

As John Wilson is being abusive I shall just ignore him. But he does illustrate the point I was making. Very quick to challenge me but I don't see him challenging the identities of the dubious posters writing in support of Quizzing.co.uk or the ones who have been abusive to JW6aa.

Morgan4 14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Morgan4Morgan4 14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your recent success, by the way. You have decided I was being abusive and have therefore decided not to answer the question. That is your prerogative. However, quizzing has received a series of abusive and negative postings from people calling themselves Margery Kempe, Quiz Formation, National Express, Goosey Gander etc, from people who do not wish to declare their identity. Unlike Morgan here, I am answering as me, as I have nothing to hide.

My view on this whole thing is that the posting should be deleted. We are gaining nothing by this yah boo sucks mentality. Will continues to insist that this is not an NPOV posting. Personally I disagree, but that's my opinion. My view is that to do this is an approach of someone who does not have an NPOV.

~~ John Wilson ~~

For those that missed it Jane Allen posted again on here yesterday. Then took it down. Responding to the issue of aliases Jane did not outrightly deny that she had posted on here using them. Instead she evaded the issue by turning it into a question when she just asks why would she be wasting her time posting on here. She then goes off into her usual trademark insults against JW6aa. It is all listed the edit history anyway. If she has never posted on here why does she not just say "I have never posted here" and why does she take that last post down? All I am now going to say of this issue is that it is highly hypocritical of Jane when she once blasted an arch rival of hers for doing no worse. In that instance the gentleman concerned had posted under different aliases on Jane's own Quizzing.co.uk website on which she has total control. Jane could have just quietly deleted this gentleman's posts. But no as she saw this gentleman as a threat to her ambitions she had to go exposing and ridiculing him. To acheive the maximum effect she also kept the topic as a sticky at the top of her forum page for many months after.Morgan4 10:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Morgan4Morgan4 10:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving back to the relevant issue, namely this page. Jw6aa continues to complain that the page reads like an advert. He has point with the word "over" used on several occasions so I have removed them and broken up a large paragraph.

Does this now pass the NPOV test? As a far as I can see every statement is an objective fact compiled by people knowledgable in the area.

Portlius 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/u/i/Talk%7EQuizzing.co.uk_bb37.html"