User talk:Athaenara/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Athaenara's Archive 6

This is an archive of discussions from January through April 2008.
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 5 Archive 6

1 Conflict of interest discussions in 2008

Conflict of interest discussions in 2008

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

Could you help with a complex situation?

After my last entry on WP:THIRD, I don't think something this complicated should go there. I'd like suggestions on where to take problems like this. If you want to get involved at resolving it, feel free:

I'm very concerned about his Feb 17 edits, which in any other situation I'd give a vandalism warning.

Maybe ANI would be best for something so complicated? --Ronz (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into this and will get back to you on it here. — Athaenara ✉ 02:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we have edit-warring by Lockezachman, and a new editor, Len Morrow. --Ronz (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

The Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is truly an excellent venue. Most (not all) issues receive attention fairly promptly, are addressed effectively, and often resolved within a week or two.
It's best not to try to be NPOV-in-residence, so to speak, trying to resolve issues single-handedly. That's too stressful for any individual. The community processes are designed to relieve that. If you detect a mild suggestion in this that it would benefit you to back off from some of the issues in which you've been involved, that's because it's there :-)
I left a message on Lockezachman's talk page about his sequence of edits yesterday.
(Followup message after similar edits today.) — Athaenara ✉ 05:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking into these, more later. — Athaenara ✉ 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I forgot about the conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet searches suggest Lockezachman is Stan Locke, managing director of Zachman Framework Associates. If so, COI definitely applies. — Athaenara ✉ 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this post on your talk page, Locke is also Metaframe. You knew this? — Athaenara ✉ 05:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. No, I didn't notice. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Enterprise architecture. See what you can add to it to pull together the issues as you began to do here, OK? — Athaenara ✉ 06:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Marty Munsch

I'm having a go at MM right now. He kept adding US Chaos to the Ritz article, and himself to The Clash & Joe Strummer. It's evident he wrote his entire article himself. He should at least have the grace to accept the tags, eh? If you'd keep an eye on it and revert him next time he removes them, we'll get him on WP:3RR. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit history is a bit more complicated than that but, yes, self-promotion and vandalism (to both the article and its talk page) have been a problem. — Athaenara ✉ 14:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw you did revert. Thanks. Most edits seem to come from the same NJ ISP pool. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice please?

Hi Athanenara

Thanks for third party advice on Shaftesbury. As a fellow Mensan (although you have lapsed) I will of course accept and adhere. :-)

Please however teach me about Wikipedia. I am VERY new to this and just trying to provide visitors to Wikipedia with the most up-to-date town link. (compare the events diary with the blank one on the other site linked in the article) Can you please tell me how I get 'others' to look at the Town's website and agree to its inclusion if it is constantly removed from view in the external links page. I thought (I now accept wrongly) that the link could be inserted by a single-purpose account and only removed if Editors deemed it unfit. So, I inserted the link after dialogue with a couple of Editors on 'en-help' and put the explanation they recommended in the discussion page.

I really would be very grateful if you would guide me through the process of getting the link to the official town website reviewed by editors for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgts (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:External links may be helpful to you in this regard. If you post there, provide a link there for the Talk:Shaftesbury#Town Website www.shaftesburydorset.com discussion to save time for other editors who will be looking for the earlier discussions. — Athaenara ✉ 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Say 'Hi' to SFO for me, I used to live in Sacramento and still miss the Golden State. Take Care :-) Sgts (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 21:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User Sgts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
86.130.11.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Sgts, have you also been editing anonymously? The 86.130.11.251 IP has now been blocked for edits which were the same as yours. — Athaenara ✉ 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Shaftesbury

→ In re: Shaftesbury#External links and user Curuxz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Thank you for taking the time to look into the shaftesbury page, I am glad you have seen that shaftesburytown should keep its place on the page. While I agree that there is reason for shaftesburydorset to be listed I can not help but feel that by allowing it there (at the moment) it is vindication of those who have put it on there and their complete disregard for wikipedian rules. Personally I would have preferred them having to wait a month or two and then reapply esp considering the 3RR breach. I would ask if since the consensus among others was not to have it on the page if you would consider a compromise in leaving it there but only for the time being. You seem of high enough caliber to make an independent judgment, would you consider having both there and then in say...3 months time reviewing the situation and assessing if one site is the definitive link or not then cleaning the page based on which has more value to wikipedia. I know all the pro's of shaftesburydorset are things that shaftesburytown either is implementing shortly or already has but does not chose to use. Further more the biggest weakness of shaftesburytown is its lack of events which was taken offline after the massive amounts of spam (highly offensive spam) that clearly originated from sources loyal to other web sites about shaftesbury and as a result is due to reopen soon with a very powerful ip defense software.

It seems that to give both sites a chance to improve, ie shaftesburytown to implement more features (like translation) and shaftesburydorset the chance to renounce their unjustified official claim and de-commercialise would be a fair move. Regards --Curuxz (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed the completely unjustified personal attack on me on their talk page, I have made no secret of my identity and any conflicts of interest and am disgusted that a public organisation would act in such a childish way when they do not get their own way. --Curuxz (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC) post to the article talk page said, "After taking a look at this website I can clearly see it deserves linking" - was that before or after you disclosed your conflict of interest? — Athaenara ✉ 22:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human trafficking in Angeles City

~~An article that you have been involved in editing,~~ Human trafficking in Angeles City has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Angeles City. Thank you.Susanbryce (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have never edited the article. I did have some input on the article's talk page in response to requests for assistance during edit warring and conflict of interest allegations. Thank you for notifying me of the AfD discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: I have since edited the article once: two days ago I restored full {{cite web}} format, which had been removed by another editor, for one citation. — Athaenara ✉ 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Afd closed with consensus to delete. — Athaenara ✉ 09:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table

Thanks for taking an interest in our talk page. We are under strict orders to only edit the article by consensus, and that is requiring us to have the substantive discussions you tagged--so we may not really need that tag. Could you weigh in on the RfC on that talk page? Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussions on the over-160-kb talk page and saw that the earliest were inactive and could be archived, so I began doing that—it's just one of the things I do.

(The whole thing reminds me of a quote which has been attributed to Henry Kissinger: university politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small ... )

I don't know what tag you meant. I haven't tagged any discussions there, and I haven't participated in the AfDs or the RfC. — Athaenara ✉ 09:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to participate in the RfC? We need some external editors to move things forward. Thanks again. Academic38 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know what tags you were talking about... — Athaenara ✉ 09:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here, so I apologize if I don't have all the terminology correct. You placed the talkheader template on the ORT talk page, I believe (at 07:08 11 March 2008). The version you put there contains the line, "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." That is the line I was remarking about in my first note here. We are having general discussion about the article's subject in an attempt to reach consensus, which is very difficult because there are two sharply contrasting viewpoints. So far we have managed to keep it on the talk page and not edit war on the article page. However, no one has replied to Nomoskedasticity's RfC, and if you could do so, we would be very appreciative. I hope this is a little clearer. Cheers. Academic38 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, now I understand what you meant.

{{Talkheader}} is a standard template which is often added to the talk pages of articles which have suffered from disputes and edit warring. — Athaenara ✉ 04:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I commented. I frankly don't understand why the proposed sentence would be controversial, and that's exactly what I said :-) — Athaenara ✉ 07:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries, thanks

Thank for for stepping in to this ticking time bomb. If my talk page is any indiciation, the two core debaters are going to spill off here. I've suggested WP:3O if they can't sort it out. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. As I posted on the noticeboard, I will not be involved in this. I removed Bg357's post after linking the diff there. — Athaenara ✉ 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Connexus

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

HollywoodChicago.com article

→ Moved to User talk:Athaenara/Archive 00#HollywoodChicago.com article

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_6.

Categories: User talk archives

User talk:Athaenara/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Conflict of interest discussions in 2008

Question about deletion

Speaking Dictionary

Deletion of Speedel Page

Could you help with a complex situation?

Marty Munsch

Advice please?

Shaftesbury

AfD nomination of Human trafficking in Angeles City

Oxford Round Table

Real Life Ministries, thanks

Connexus

HollywoodChicago.com article

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search