User talk:Athaenara/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Athaenara's Archive 5  


This is an archive of discussions from April through December 2007.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 4   Archive 5   Archive 6 →


Contents

Conflict of interest discussions in 2007

See Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest guideline and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

→ Note: A mouse kindly retired me from March·April·May·June 2007 COI noticeboard archiving. —A. 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointers

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

You're welcome. It's not a template, it's just a format I've developed informally over time to draw attention to small additions of significant information. — Athaenara 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's still changing, too. — Athaenara 06:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Anchor

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

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

You're welcome! You're right about editor consensus while one editor—and we're quite clear on which one—is not only disruptive, tendentious and uncivil but dishonest as well. After his second or third interjection on the 3RR page I just ignored him. — Athaenara 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For going out of the way to help in an edit conflict and trying to ensure fair treatment among the editors involved. Russeasby 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

You've shown good judgement in posting here, in my experience, so don't worry about that caution—it's intended for, hmm, well, I'll show you diffs sometime, more clueless users.
I saw the RFC and I expect to post* as one of the uninvolved parties later today. I think there's nothing wrong with notifying other NPOV editors of the RFC if they have previously commented and might have more to say, as long as you do it wholly neutrally without soliciting particular sorts of input such as support or condemnation. [Post.]*
Remember you have a life outside of what one linkspamming COI SPA has turned into a dreadful little battleground, and remember there's no particular time limit to RFCs, nor mandated conclusions. — Athaenara 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't easy to take my own advice when, with characteristic ruthlessness, he posted a flurry of interjections and trumpeted "you are now anything but uninvolved…" — Athaenara 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I know you have stepped away from this dispute, but I have opened a Request for Comment on User:Badmonkey, if you could step in a moment and certify that you attempted to resolve the dispute I would be grateful. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badmonkey Russeasby 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Done! — Athaenara 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Marie Killick

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

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

This inventor's story is a significant episode in the history of audio engineering. — Athaenara 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The Killick vs Pye Ltd case seems also significant on the patent law circuit, as an often-quoted precedent that a patent doesn't need to be a major developmental leap in a technology to be valid. Tearlach 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
(Taking time out from reading about sabre-toothed Thylacosmilus, Creodonta and Nimravidae)—Killick's daughter's website has several photographs showing datelines for contemporary 1950s newsmedia. Would that we could find text online to cite them more directly. — Athaenara 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, someone did! The New York Times (1958) and Chicago Tribune (1959).
Way to go, Crockspot! — Athaenara 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bichon Frisé

Hi Athanaera, could you please take a look at Bichon Frisé and particularly the edits of User:Canadian Bichon Frise? I will violate WP:3RR if I revert once more, but this looks like a SPA for COI and spam edits. If you think the links inserted are inappropriate and revert them, I will report any subsequent 3RR behavior. If you think they are fine, I defer to your judgment. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I think you'd make a great admin.

You're right. User Canadian Bichon Frise and user Canbichon are both linkspamming. I restored the version which existed prior to their intrusion. — Athaenara 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reverts! The funny thing is I don't even care for Bichon Frisés, but I will fight to the death for their right to a spam-free article here ;-) Ruhrfisch 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Amen to that. Check out the useful {{Uw-spam1}} and associated user warning templates, too—they look very useful. — Athaenara 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And here is the revert after the 3RR warning. — Athaenara 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Canadian Bichon Frise reported by User:Ruhrfisch (Result:Indef block; SPA)—nice work! — Athaenara 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and the useful templates (I tend to forget about the UW series and did not know the 3RR template at all). If only they were all this easy. Ruhrfisch 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, I'm on the learning curve too. — Athaenara 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with COI SPAs

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

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

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

Impressive!

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

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

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

You're welcome, and thanks for the update. I added a pointer to the now-archived WP:AN/I discussion to the WP:COI/N discussion as well. — Athaenara 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You may be getting bored with this by now, but if you're not,... Codeplowed already made two more socks, disrupted the article again, was reported again, the 2 new socks have already been blocked. Here's the quickly resolved SSP report: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Codeplowed (2nd). --Parzival418 Hello 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not bored, just sidelined by browser/skin anomalies. Please continue to keep me informed according to your own good judgement. — Athaenara 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Footnote: Computer issues ("browser/skin anomalies") now in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 0.

MDS America merge

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

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

Endal

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

Not sure if you intended to undo my change here or not [1]. I am guessing this happened because you were working from a sandbox copying things over? If thats not the case, thats fine too, but I do think the history section is more appropriate first. Russeasby 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

→ (In re: Talk:Endal#Pedigree)

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

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

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

Vanishing

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

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

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

Archived section

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

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

It is usual on an active noticeboard to archive inactive sections after two weeks or so. The one you refer to here had been inactive since May 1.
If a report needs more attention, returning it from an archive is not a problem, and I'll be happy to do that for you if you like. It will help, I think, if you can clarify it a bit, as it's hard to know what was meant by "scroll to bottom and view highlighted text." — Athaenara 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Sure, bring it back and I'll make it more clear. If it goes inactive again, well then that should prove that it isn't worth the interest of public reviewers :) Andyru 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. — Athaenara 14:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Law Practice Today

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

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

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

Like minds

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

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

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

Bookuser

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

Could you consider reading through and comment on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Bookuser? It looks like this is close to being settled, and fairly easily. There is still the issue of Bookuser overlinking MIT Press and Semiotext(e) as in Paul Virilio#Bibliography [2]. Your perspective would be appreciated. -- Ronz  17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bookuser's decision to suggest links on article talk pages rather than add links at will to articles is what one would hope as per NPOV policy. I checked the Virilio bibliography and linked each publisher once, which is sufficient. I haven't checked others, though. — Athaenara 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think linking like this should be brought to Bookuser's attention? Discussed on COI/N? Both? -- Ronz  22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think other editors either don't notice or eventually reduce such overlinking. There's certainly no harm in mentioning it on either or both. — Athaenara 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome

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

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

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

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

If "OK! Is this resolved now?" is a comment, I commented. Like quicksand, bickering on the sidelines is best avoided. I am particularly wary of such at the moment because of another situation which has many of the signs and symptoms of tendentious editing. — Athaenara 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Copy that … dealing with a WikiVandal should always take priority over a Talk page WikiTroll … I'll bug Some Other Editor who is both more familiar with the situation and with whom I've had more contact. :-) —72.75.100.232 02:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Timestamps

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

Diffs retrieved from COI/N history. — Athaenara 12:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
D'oh! I guess my evil twin was just trying to avoid confusion from what may have looked like a single use account ... that IP lasted less than 100 hours between the 68.xxx and this one, as I recall ... that was a Very Stressful weekend for me (as I recall; I try to forget unpleasantness ASAP), so my sincere apologies for (a) doing something Really Dumb, and (b) denying it because I had forgotten what/why I did it. :-) —72.75.70.147 09:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (a.k.a. The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome; see User talk:72.75.70.147/WikiGnome.)

Peter Nehr

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

Question

Hi, I'm pretty new to COIN. I notice you closed some entries, including Overton Loyd. Is this something that any editor can do? If so, do you think I would have been justified in closing that one myself (since another editor had already reported that the situation was resolved?) And what exactly is the process for doing so? Thanks for any tips… -Pete 05:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on my way out the door, but the first step is to read the instructions at the top of the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page. — Athaenara 05:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I had looked through and missed that bit about closing. I think I understand it, but may be back with questions if/when I find one worthy of closing…appreciate the reply! -Pete 06:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
COI/N archiving so far

A discussion which has concluded may be boxed with top {{coit}} and bottom {{coib}} markup:

{{subst:coit | [[article]] | Result. | ~~~~~ }}
==Section heading==
* {{article | articlename }}
* {{userlinks | username }}
Report and subsequent comments.
{{subst:coib}}

The article and result fields are filled in for each section. An example from COI/N Archive 14:

{{subst:coit | [[Kossar's Bialys]] | Resolved. | ~~~~~ }}
==[[Kossar's Bialys]]==
( Report and subsequent comments. )
{{subst:coib}}

"Resolved" "Inactive" and "Article deleted" are typical but not universal results. The templates are {{subst}}ed (see template substitution) and will expand after a page save.

The {{coit}} and {{coib}} markup may be added either before or after a section is lifted and transplanted as a single block of text from the noticeboard to the archive selected from the COI/N archive toc.

But it could be changed
Volunteers?

My mouse will no longer do massive copying and pasting. Fortunately, there are other editors with tougher ones. Maybe you're one of them? — Athaenara 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Most excellent, thank you for the detailed instructions! I will try to jump into these on occasion. I am a bit wary of potentially-contentious debates these days though - I've found they can reduce my wikifun a bit. But I'm definitely up for the challenge, just might be a little slow to take it on. My first COI/N experience was very positive, with an editor I chastised going out of his way to thank me for my input…so I'm definitely interested in sticking with it. Thanks! -Pete 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Great, I'm very glad you're interested. I don't expect much if any disagreement about changes because relatively few editors take on tasks such as noticeboard archiving. It comes down to a willingness to do the work. Note: when I first happened upon BLP/N in February, more than 140 of its 185 sections needed to be archived and had not been. — Athaenara 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Links on Slavery-related Articles

→ (In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 15#EServer.org & Special:Linksearch/*.antislavery.eserver.org)

Athaenara -- I shall pass on any further immediate address to deleted links in the slavery-related articles. The past several days have been interesting but diversionary, and attention needs to be paid elsewhere. Late this month I shall return to this matter via talk pages on the individual articles. When we get around to that, I shall notify you and look forward to working with you on review of these links. Cheers, --Jlockard 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

O.K. — Athaenara ✉ 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am delayed in returning to work on external links to slavery-related articles. Reality, deadlines, that sort of matter. There is, however, not the slightest rush here. Jlockard 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with linkspam

WP:LINKSPAM

Recently User:Dking has resumed this activity -- see [3] and [4]. Also see similar edits by User:Cberlet: [5], [6], and [7]. --Don't lose that number 07:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

→ In re various COI discussions including, among others, the following:

  • Note: the abortive RfM was attempted by Cberlet.
Cberlet and Dking are both COI SPAs: they are each single purpose accounts and they each have a very obvious personal and professional conflict of interest.
Note: as of June, I am not active on the noticeboards. — Athaenara ✉ 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

VA Web Team

→ (In re: Victoria and Albert Museum sections (1) & (2) in COI/N Archive 12. —A.)

Hello, I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page. Also, if you can bear it, my To Do List has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look at all of the pairings of articles with V&A content, but those I studied (e.g. Leighton House Museum, Ardabil Carpet, Issey Miyake's "Pleats Please," the History of knitting) seem to me to contribute appropriate content of high quality to the encyclopedia.
After assessing one instance more closely—the Richard Avedon "Dovima with the Elephants" photograph for the Dovima article—I took the liberty in this edit of placing the V&A citation and adding reference format for the external link which was already there.
I must compliment you on the work you've been doing! — Athaenara ✉ 14:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help and spending your time on this. May I ask for your help again in the future? VAwebteam 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed you may. I found the eclectic assemblage of topics very absorbing. In almost every instance the pertinent V&A resources better serve as inline references for encyclopedic content than as external links. — Athaenara ✉ 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to say something about VAwebteam's amazing image for the Ardabil Carpet article, but it really speaks for itself. — Athaenara ✉ 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot archiving for COIN?

→ See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archive 5#Question about COI/N archiving. —A.

Hi Athaenara! Since you stopped archiving, the COI noticeboard is turning into a slum. It's now up to 280 kb, it has grass growing between the bricks, etc. Would you have any opinion on archiving by bot? I helped the WQA board to switch to that system in July, and of course WP:AN and WP:ANI do it that way. It would mean some issues may not be crisply resolved, and some people would miss that. It would also keep things current, and it's less work. A 12 day timeout might be considered (vs. 1 day for ANI, 2 days for AN). EdJohnston 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

O, the irony. You posted here mere hours (21:52 - 17:16 = 4:36) after I removed a discussion of COI/N archiving from this page because it had been inactive for more than a month. I think your idea of bot archiving with two weeks grace is good. — Athaenara ✉ 03:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I closed more than forty sections which had been resolved or inactive since July or earlier. The situation is absolutely appalling. COI/N Archive 17 is open, but my computer mouse will no longer do massive copypasting to move sections into archives. I hope the section closings will aid followup by other editors with heftier equipment. — Athaenara ✉ 02:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
YaY, MiszaBot II is on the job! — Athaenara ✉ 16:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! Of course those (like me) who occasionally browse through the old issues will now have to browse the Archive. EdJohnston 16:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And now on to bot archiving for BLP/N? A look at its page history just now showed it has reached 373,265 bytes! — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I shouldn't have mentioned this to you, who work much harder than Wikipedia has a right to expect of anyone. The issue itself, however, is being discussed on BLP/N talk: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Archiving by bot? — Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TREC

→ In re: Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs)
      and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#User Benderson2 and TREC.

On the TREC issue, it's starting to look that you might need some admin help on the article Talk page. It's unfortunate that COIN has not been had many patrollers lately. Maybe it's something about the vacation. Usually you get a few good blasts of indignation about the more inexcusable stuff, but it's been very quiet. (Except in some cases where people come to the noticeboard along with the issue). I've seen Jehochman around, but not too many other people. Even WP:RSN is rather dull these days. Maybe the TREC stuff will escalate up to a real noticeboard, and something will happen! Also the TREC issues seem to require very careful study of the references, which may discourage newcomers. The most blatant stuff is the behavior of the webmaster. EdJohnston 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shoot, I thought I was getting my own perma-Knock-knock section on your page! You're right. I've noticed the zero input for the COI/N updates too. — Athaenara ✉ 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I posted on COI/N about the Nis Randers posts. — Athaenara ✉ 21:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this please?

→ In re: Anti-stuttering devices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) & Special:Contributions/Tdkehoe.

Hi Athaenara, I found Anti-stuttering devices on Peer Review here with this red flag "The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something." I left {{uw-coi}} on the author's talk page and am not sure if this should go to WP:COI/N or not. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be listed on COI/N. There's a backlog there, but that's a matter of inactive sections which should be archived. The article has some WP:NOT issues as well. (I wonder why Tdkehoe listed it on Peer review/Glasses, an odd location for it.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Athaenara, I have listed this at COI/N. I think the peer review was listed under Glasses' peer review as the user did not know how to properly include the request in Peer Review and just added it to the last one on the list. It has since been fixed there, though the article in qustion is still very non-encyclopedic. I will at least add some cleanup tags there next. Your help is, as always, greatly appreciated, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice sought

→ In re: Tdkehoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).  See also: archived previous discussion.

Hi Athaenara, back in September you looked at Anti-stuttering devices, whose primary author (User:Tdkehoe) is head of a firm that makes said devices. I left a COI notice on his talk page then, we both did some cleanup of the article, and I listed the article at COI/N, but it was archived without any comments. The article is still very problematic, and he has also been working on Stuttering, which was demoted from Featured Article recently (see the FAR). Since the FAR he has been reverting / removing from Stuttering well-sourced material (based on peer-reviewed research) that goes against his products (see Talk:Stuttering).

Now SandyGeorgia (and, to a lesser extent, I) have stepped in, but I was wondering what advice you have here? Relist Anti-stuttering devices at COI/N? List Stuttering and/or User:Tdkehoe at COI/N? RfC the article? RfC the editor? All of the above? Run screaming to Jimbo? ;-) Any advice or help you could offer here would be appreciated,

Thanks in advance and happy Thanksgiving a day late, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, single-handedly getting an article demoted from featured status is not the kind of accomplishment most of us aim for. I see that in this edit he removed spam, COI and copyright notices from his talk page, too. I'll give this some thought. — Athaenara ✉ 07:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This issue should be relisted on COI/N (fortunately, inactive discussions there are now archived by bot, so it's no longer choking on its own mass) and the other editors who were trying to address the problems this COI SPA has caused should be notified of it. — Athaenara ✉ 07:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The COI/N report should be both brief and comprehensive to the extent that is possible. The issue is specifically the Tdkehoe account, a coi spa. — Athaenara ✉ 07:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think, now that I've re-read the devices article and its talk page, that you have been dealing very effectively on your own, but you probably would not have posted here if you felt that was sufficient. Please feel free to post more if you wish. — Athaenara ✉ 10:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will list him at COI/N and give you the link. Appreciate the advice - just wanted to make sure I was doing this right as I am not often involved in COI disputes. FYI, it will probably take me some time to make the COI/N notice, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Slp1 is the content expert, and I think s/he can eventually restore Stuttering as long as there's no interference. (S/he is *very* busy in real life.) But, s/he has raised issues of possible sockpuppetry on my talk page,[8] and I'm also concerned about Kehoe's extensive writing at Wikibooks. I've never been to Wikibooks, but he lists a number of articles on the FAR, and links to them in the alt.support.stuttering newsgroup and FAQ. I'm afraid this one is a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, this is why it needs to be listed on COI/N. A user talk page is inadequate for the coverage and attention these issues need, and trying to deal on several different article talk pages yields burdensome repetition and reduced effectiveness. — Athaenara ✉ 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In re the sock puppetry, would that be 67.140.217.232 and Stutterman? If they're doing the same, they should be listed with Tdkehoe in the COI/N report. — Athaenara ✉ 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That seems to have backed off, and since we don't have Checkuser proof, I'm unclear if it should be raised? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If they performed the same kinds of edits, the question arises and should be mentioned. If, for example, Tdkehoe were to be blocked for his obstructive and disruptive editing, after which one or both of the others resumed editing, it could lead to checkuser, but checkuser itself isn't required to simply stop them from doing that. — Athaenara ✉ 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks Athaenara. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have listed this at WP:COI/N, please see here. I can add the IPs if you think it best (had not seen the above before), thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Appalachian Voices

→ In re: Appalachian Voices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Thanks for helping me on the Appalachian Voices page! I was starting to get lonely!! D-rew (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, "lobbyist" is the term used in the article which you added as an inline external link and to which I added format as an inline citation. “… Appalachian Voices has grown to require the work of more than 10 full time staffers including Washington lobbyist J.W. Randolph” is the exact quote. — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that

→ In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Moneybomb and user John J. Bulten (talk · contribs).

See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. He's trying to change WP:V to justify inclusion of the material viewed as unreliably sourced. Gordonofcartoon 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Bulten is aware that he is risking a block for disruptive editing and violations of the civility policy in pursuit of his conflict of interest. — Athaenara ✉ 16:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The general obfuscatory style looks a classic example of WP:SOUP (compare [9]). Gordonofcartoon 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that great page before! (Coincidentally, I added that compare diff on COI/N :-)
I posted a warning to his talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The first line in the diff quoted on WP:SOUP fits him to a T: “…filibustering, addressing criticism with pages of verbal fog while professing the utmost reasonability in doing so.” — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance on this, Athaenara.  :) One other cleanup item, that I was wondering if you could help with? It appears that Bulten started a User Conduct RfC page on me a couple days ago.[10] As near as I can tell, he's never actually added anything to it, and of course it's uncertified, though he's continuing to refer to it as a next step.[11] For the record, I'm honestly not sure why he seems to have singled me out on this particular dispute, since I've really had very little to do with the article. Anyway, since the 48 hours are up, could you see about deleting it please? Thanks, Elonka 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Done! — Athaenara ✉ 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much.  :) I wasn't too worried that it was going to get certified, but I'm planning a run at RfA soon, and wanted to keep that particular link, red.  ;) --Elonka 00:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Again

→ In re: John J. Bulten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Sorry, but would you be able to take a glance at this? I'm getting hassled on my Talk page now with another spurious line of argument: his trying to invoke WP:BLP for a fairly trivial comment I made. And he's still not accepting that his error is not something lying within complex nitpicks with rules, but is that complex rule-nitpicking is viewed as contentious in itself per WP:POINT and WP:GAME. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll get back to you soon on this. — Athaenara ✉ 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thx. It's rather tempting to forget politeness; it's a classic case of WP:SOUP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours this time. — Athaenara ✉ 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. Elonka is now negotiating rather more diplomatically than I'd manage. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AtHomeNet

→ Moved to User talk:Athaenara/Archive 00#AtHomeNet

User JMorton

→ In re: user account JMorton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).
→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 19#COI: Jack Morton Worldwide.

I've unblocked the above user (who you indefblocked), on the proviso that he avoid all articles to which he and his company are connected. I hope you don't mind! I did it on a proviso, however:

Request for unblock accepted, on the condition that the user does not edit any articles to which he or she has any connection (specifically, but not including, Jack Morton Worldwide). Any edits that even border on a conflict of interest will result in a permanent block.

Sound like a plan? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Question: the user's unblock request is not visible on the user's talk page; was it inadvertently dropped in a subsequent edit? — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How to add to category

Hello Athaenara, Ive been setting up a number of articles of charities in the Philippines, the latest one here... Childhope Asia Philippines ... but i wanted to add these to the section on Category:Organizations based in the Philippines... but I cant see how to add them or how to place the tags on the charity areticles after, can you pls explain how i can do this? kind regards Susanbryce (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is how it's done. — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site.
The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara/Archive_5.