User:CliffC/Notes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CliffC/Notes.
  • Susan L. Rosenberg
  • alan berkman

People who start an article tend to get attached to it, but please keep in mind that no one owns an article; all articles are open to editing and the addition of material from reliable sources by anyone. As it says two inches below the box I'm typing into, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it".

alpert/swinton http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F60714FB3E5E16738DDDA10894DE405B858BF1D3

  • anrchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Murderbike&curid=11864135&diff=176509539&oldid=176423474
  • anrchy2http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Murderbike&curid=11864135&diff=176515998&oldid=176509871

Contents

[edit] Considering removed or edited comments

Before beginning any administrative review of the copyvio claim, for completeness please review this page's history so that talk page comments unilaterally removed or edited can be part of the process. --CliffC (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • MrNavinJohnson
  • NavinJohnson007
  • VivaBelgica
  • VivaBelgica2
  • VivaBelgicaBE
  • 81.247.161.113
  • 83.182.178.126
  • Diyexpat

http://southwesternimages.atiba.com/MySouthwestern/PDF/2007DealerAgreement.pdf

  • google host site:southwesternimages.atiba.com

This article lists examples of the ongoing influence of the Los Angeles riots of 1992 on popular culture.

The Los Angeles riots had a broad impact on popular culture that still continues, influencing music, film, television, video games and other art forms.

Main article: 1992 Los Angeles riots in popular culture

[1]

[edit] Notes and past threads of discussion and notes follow...

[edit] 101 California Street shootings

[edit] arts wiki!

[edit] Sullivan law

[edit] Metesky notes

two iffy sources say "Three months later [after the second bomb], the bomber sent a letter to police: “I will make no more bomb units for the duration of the War – My patriotic feelings have made me decide this – Later I will bring the Con Edison to justice – they must pay for their dastardly deeds.” I can't find a WP:RS for this so I'll save the "patriotic feelings" statement for the time of his confession, where a citation exists.

[edit] Other bombs and bomb scares of the era

Before George Metesky, New York City was no stranger to bombs, some far more powerful than Metesky's, and to hoaxes and scares that usually followed. //bracketed//

  • //<bombings and>bomb threats were //common in the era, ////, too numerous to list, but A SAMPLING OF NEWS STORIES

By 1940, World War Two in Europe had begun, with Britain and Germany as participants. In the second season of the 1939 New York World's Fair on the 4th of July 1940, two NYPD officers were killed and five others injured while examining a ticking time bomb in an overnight bag. They had just carried the bag from the British Pavilion to an isolated area for the safety of fairgoers. Two weeks earlier, time bombs that injured nine people were set off at the offices of the German Consulate General and the Communist Party newspaper The Daily Worker. These bombings were followed two days later by telephoned threats to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, and Williamsburg Bridge. On July 6 a telephoned threat was made advising that the Consolidated Edison storage tanks on West 66th Street were about to be blown up, resulting in the tanks and other Con Edison facilities being placed under special guard.[2][3][4]

Perhaps feeding Metesky's thoughts, a one-paragraph article in The New York Times of October 30, 1940 reported that in mid-afternoon of the previous day a telephone call advised that the 27-story Consolidated Edison Building on Irving Place "would be blown up in half an hour". A search by 150 guards and policemen found no bomb.[5]

  • jumpy about the war in Europe, German Bund activity





Less than four years after Metesky was captured, a so-called "Sunday Bomber" operating on Sundays and holidays set off five bombs more powerful than Metesky's, the last an under-seat dynamite blast that killed one subway rider and injured 18. In all the Sunday Bomber killed one and injured 57, and was never apprehended. [7][8]

[edit] Grossman / Melville / terror alpert

  • NYT terror+bombing/bomb/s range 1969-1971

"F. B. I. CHARGES 4 WITH 8 BOMBINGS HERE SINCE JULY; 3 Men and Woman Are Held in High Bail -- Arrests Follow Surveillance A 5TH SUSPECT SOUGHT Scores of Buildings Emptied During Day as 300 Threats Are Made by Phone F.B.I. Charges 3 Men and Woman With 8 Terror Bombings in the City Since July ANOTHER WOMAN IS HUNTED IN PLOT Arrests Follow Painstaking Surveillance by Agents"

&Catalog:Domestic terrorism Case-Study of US Domestic Terrorism

  • NYTimes "samuel+j+melville" - 32 articles
  • artvoice.com - 4-parter of 'mad bomber melville' book "The Federal Building at Foley Square in Manhattan was the tallest federal structure in the United States, and second in square footage only to the Pentagon."

[edit] Insurance-industry spam; spammed internal links

Spam for an industry organization is being added to insurance-related articles. Is not germane to the articles, examples here and here. Also spamming irrelevant internal links pointing to America’s Health Insurance Plans, IMO a promotional article with no claims of notability.

http://spam.ahip.org/

http://spam.ahipresearch.org/

Spammers

CliffC 12:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 39 fresh spam links to non-notable art site

http://spam.terminartors.com

Spammers

Please provide a list of editors who have added the link, as those with rollback tools (whether admin or script based) can easily go through the contribs page and revert the spamming. To demonstrate the benefits: it took the spammer 7 hours to add those links, but it took me 3 minutes to remove them. Thanks. MER-C 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online menus

[edit] Panda / pandasoft

[edit] Floyd Collins

[edit] www.brett-tech.com spammers

[edit] z'go

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201202178&pgno=1&queryText=

[edit] "Operation Bootstrap" Google army bootstrap program degree crandall

[edit] Tinetti Test

[edit] FDA + "hearing aid"

[edit] also 'RITE' addition - move, copyedit

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/latest-innovation-in-open-fit-hearing-aids-speaker-in-the-ear.html

[edit] Chief Willie Williams

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30D16FA38540C758CDDAA0894DF494D81

[edit] (From Attica prison riot(s)) Why reference back to movies?

NPOV? Were reforms put into place? Did they get extra toilet paper? Why does EVERY historical event chronicled by Wikipedia have to make reference to pop music and movies? I suggest a click here, and a pop-up box will appear to show those wanting to assimilate trivia the frivolous stuff. Wikipedia; I am tiring of your aligning serious fact with pop art. GRoberts

It may be the pervasive influence of Hollywood. The ,most important cultural centre. It is not novels or poems but movies. Chivista
For some reason there is a tendancy to add a reference here whenever anyone hears the word "attica" on their favorite TV show. I think that the standard ought to be that the work in its entirety, be it song, poem, movie or whatever is about Attica. It's really not necessary to catalog every mention of the prison ever uttered in any media. Charles (Kznf) 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think that it might help if the section were renamed something more substantial than "cultural references". I think it's the vagueness of this section title that might be causing some of the problems. Charles (Kznf) 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I for one found the article trying to figure out WTF the Attica... chant in Dog Day Afternoon was about; I didn't get it. Cultural references are a more important part of internet articles like wikipedia than we might be used to in other contexts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.193.220 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Exactly. The Attica chant is a direct reference to Dog Day Afternoon, and only an indirect reference to the Attica Prison Riots. That is why the article first lists DDA, and directly people to that article (which has it's own cultural references section) and then lists direct cultural reference. Charles (Kznf) 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This next guy seems to have multiple personalities

  • User:Callmarcus
  • User:Common Sense7
  • User:GrandpaDoc
  • User:Root7
  • User:The Truthish
  • User talk:66.140.45.122
  • maybe Rexwarrior Oct 07
  • maybe 147.64.136.255 Oct 25
  • plus some other IP addrs I've misplaced

[edit] Your agenda (left on User:Common Sense7 talk page)

You seem to have some issues in dealing with the subjects of Italian-Americans, Europeans, and race. You change articles on a whim, and never leave behind an edit summary to explain to the rest of Wikipedia your thinking or any actual facts behind the change. When I look at your contributions I see a lot of unsourced POV. You don't agree the several names deleted here are Italian Americans? Italians are not White Americans[1]? You dispute the "dignity and stability" of parts of South Philadelphia[2]? Frank Rizzo was not the Mayor[3]? European Americans are not white[4]? You don't think Nancy Pelosi is a European American[5]? People should not know these external articles and stories exist[6]? I could go on. Please take your beliefs and theories to the article talk pages for discussion and debate, and do not make unsourced changes to match your POV. I hope you will change your approach to building an encyclopedia. --CliffC 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolleh photography spammer

I have placed a message about your recent edits in Talk:Henry Moore and/or Talk:René Magritte. --CliffC 04:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly prefer to believe the Wolleh photos were substituted (and later, simply added) in good faith, perhaps as you say in frustration at not getting the revised page to flow correctly. But when I first spotted the substitution of a Wolleh photo for the image of Magrittes's "The Treachery of Images", my spam detector went off. A little forensic work yields diffs for 9 November - Magritte and 9 November - Moore, then 16 November - Moore again where, for whatever reason, a Wolleh photo was substituted for an image of one of the artists's most famous works. I believe this user has a commercial interest in getting Wolleh's works into Wikipedia, and when I read the expansion of template {{spam1}} it tells me such photos should not be used. Perhaps if I had used the template instead of referring the users to notes posted in the Talk pages the problem would have gone away and we wouldn't need this discussion.
I think reader interest in seeing a photo of an artist like Moore or Magritte takes second place to an interest in knowing what his art looks like (Dali excepted, of course!). When an editor thinks an artist photo will be helpful to an article, I hope he will place it in a respectful size and position to the art, and use a photo that would help us recognize the artist should we ever see him on the street. --CliffC 22:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research; NPOV; verifiability

Recently some material was added to Haunted Castle that seems not in keeping with Wikipedia:No original research ("any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article"). Some seems to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and much does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability.

When I started to clean up and expand the article a few weeks ago, I struggled a bit with what to do with its existing "Media" section, which, as pointed out above, looked like an advertisement. I decided on a section "Questioning the report" where Smith's documentary was summarized, and two links to the documentary were included in "External links".

What I am inclined to do is revert the article to the way it stood before the additions, then review the new material to see if there's anything that has been overlooked (and I would guess there is), try to find a reliable, verifiable source for that material, then re-add it to the article, hopefully in a consistent style and with a neutral point of view.

Those new additions contained a lot of interesting material that I think should be publicly available. I would suggest that the author host them on his web site; we can mention them in "Questioning the report" the same as we do the documentary and add the site to "External links". --CliffC 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a disgrace and irresponsible on the part of the user (CliffC) to delete the changes I made last week in attempt to correct this TOTALLY INCORRECT article THAT HAS NOW RETURNED TO WIKIPEDIA IN ITS ORIGINAL INCORRECT FORMAT. I'd like to see what qualifications CliffC has as a journalist (I would guess none by reading his work), but we'll never know, as he's too cowardly to post an email address so I can ask. I spent years researching the Haunted Castle, and HAVE PUBLISHED AN AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY ON THE SUBJECT, so how could it be unverifiable? All of my information was cited as such. This user should stop making changes to this article, as it clear he has NO IDEA at all what he's talking about, as the current article looks like a child wrote it, and is TOTALLY INCORRECT IN MANY AREAS. (Posted by Pete Smith, Haunted Castle researcher and author)Popartpete 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[Added a ":" to the above paragraph to indent] As stated above, I plan to review the material added, some very interesting, and try to find reliable verifiable sources for anything overlooked that makes sense to add to an encyclopedia article without it sounding like it came out of the New York Post. I will work on this as my time and other interests allow, but it won't be my highest priority. Meanwhile, I don't "own" the article; anyone can edit here in Wikipedia as long as they keep to the Wikipedia rules. The article is not locked. I would love to see some additional material from a reliable source besides the few used so far.
As to my qualifications, I don't need to show you any, and in fact I don't need to have any, for this is Wikipedia. My contributions over the last few months are my résumé, just as yours are your résumé.
I don't publish my email address because I don't like spam, and unlike others I don't need to get my name out there to drum up orders for a product. Feel free to ask questions here or on my Talk page. --CliffC 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected Contributions

Hi Cliff,

First of all, i would like to thank you for your contribution on WikiPedia. I do want this website to maintain its excellent reputation.

However i do disagree with your withdrawal of my contributions. I think i made a valid point about "Third-party corroboration" on the Click Fraud page...

"Some Third-party corroboration solutions can display a custom pop-up message after a set amount of fraudulent clicks within a set period of time. This can be a good way to overcome unwanted clicks from Advertising Competitors. Nervous competitors may be concerned that Google can track their clicks."

This is discussed in more detail with other methods of preventing click fraud on my website. I has spent a large amount of effort creating a non-commercial resources section to my website. This information is available for free to web browser, hence why I believe why my link should be valid. At the very least, I believe my comments above are valid.

I don’t think it’s fair to presume everyone is "Link Spamming". Believe me, I could think of far easier ways to do so.

Please don't take this as an insult or as a personal attack.

Thanks --nPresence 12th Dec 2006

Hi nPresence - as far as the text in Click fraud is concerned, it was not rejected, but simply reverted along with the link you added. I am not an expert on click fraud, so I personally have no issue with the text (but of course like everything else on Wikipedia someone else might); I just happen to have Click fraud on my Watch list because it attracts a lot of commercial links. I sympathize with you because I know how hard it is to get a business name or product "out there" at the beginning. But as far as adding the link to either article, Wikipedia rules are clear on this, "Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed". However, take a look at item 6 in Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer and the guidelines in template {{welcomespam}}. Best regards. --CliffC 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buying Red Robin gift cards with a credit card

Those considering purchasing Red Robin gift cards through the site should be aware that their credit card information is apparently not [[encryption|encrypted by standard methods during transmission and might be exposed to hackers. See How can I tell if a web page is secure?.

[edit] Salt Lake City

I agree the article doesn't need two pictures of downtown Salt Lake City. IMO Image:DSCN0437SLC.JPG is superior because it includes a nice view of the mountains. As to the "teens from polygamous families" photo, is it not a picture of a real, newsworthy event? The article states elsewhere that polygamy has been renounced, so if the teen gathering is indeed real (and I do find such an event mentioned HERE), then the photo and caption would seem to lend a balance. Bush protests can be found on every third street-corner, so a picture of one wouldn't bring much new information to the world.
(...)
Um, well, I wasn't "supporting" anyone or anything, I'm just a bored old guy from the East Coast weighing in on an article that showed up in Recent Changes, and trying to lend a neutral view to one tiny aspect of the article.

[edit] Mall pics

( The site linked was: charlottecritic.com/pics/charlotte_shopping_centers/northlake_mall -- link edited by CliffC )

Please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Based on your contributions, it seems that you came here to promote a web site. Wikipedia is not a link farm, nor is it a shopping or travel guide. Sorry, but I don't see how these links add anything encyclopedic, we all know what the inside of a shopping mall looks like. If I'm wrong about any of these pages, please consider adding their unique information directly to the corresponding articles in Wikipedia so we can improve the encyclopedia's contents. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing here. --CliffC 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "allegedly" after perpetrator has been convicted

Except that in this case, unlike the Holocaust and Hitler, here Timmendequas is the "alleged killer." You forgot the word "alleged." 65.28.9.8 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He's been convicted hasn't he? What's alleged about that? 195.157.218.43 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
He argues that he was wrongfully convicted; if he admitted to the allegations, they wouldn't be alleged, but he hasn't, so therefore they're "alleged," and he's the "alleged killer." Since we have a presumption of innocence, that's how this terminology works. People are convicted wrongfully all the time. Conviction doesn't make the allegations actually true. Thus, the word "alleged" is neutral, per WP:NPOV. 65.28.9.8 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no longer any presumption of innocence once someone is convicted; resolving that presumption one way or the other is the whole point of rounding up a jury and having a trial. I found this article while looking for something else and was amazed to see all the "allegedly"s sprinkled about. I have removed them and made a few other changes and wikification improvements. --CliffC 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. People are convicted wrongfully all the time, sometimes for many, many years (see miscarriage of justice for a list of only a few). Just because someone was convicted of a crime does not mean that the allegations against them are not just that - allegations. Timmendequas clearly has been protesting his innocence all the time, and continues with post-conviction remedy attempts. If those attempts are successful, his conviction would be overturned. Accordingly, because he has not stated the allegations are true, they remain allegations - neither true nor untrue. To call them anything less or more in this article is not a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). Even should this discussion section should be called "Use of 'allegedly' after alleged perpetrator has been convicted." 65.28.9.8 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Easy corrections can be made to make the article more WP:NPOV without sticking in a bunch of "allegedly's". See: examples here. This is an encyclopedia for God's sake — not the proper place to vindicate convicted criminals or to right the wrongs of the American justice system. Also, the possibility that he maintains his innocence is much more of an allegation than the fact that he was convicted for the crime in question, as you have failed to provide any references. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone at 65.160.57.101 requested my password

Resolved. Nominator concurs with closure. --Aarktica 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I received an email from wiki@wikimedia.org with subject line New temporary password for Wikipedia. The text is

Someone from the IP address 65.160.57.101 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia. The new password for the user account "CliffC" is "(redacted)". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password. If it was you who requested this new password, then you should log in to Wikipedia and change it to your desired password by clicking "My Preferences" at the top right of any page, or by visiting the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you. ~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org

I didn't ask for my password to be sent and I don't know who 65.160.57.101 is. When I go to his talk page here I see that he's a spammer with three sock accounts, but I don't see any intersection between the articles he's spammed and those where I've reverted spammers, or even visited.

So... "What's all this then?" I once saw this question asked elsewhere in Wikipedia, I don't recall where, but the answer was something to the effect of "nothing to be concerned about, move along". Can someone explain (or speculate on) what's going on? --CliffC 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit disconcerting, I agree, but probably nothing to worry about. I have seen this mentioned at the VP before. I suspect that someone decided to try something nefarious and picked your account at random (perhaps from article history or a talk page). As they will no doubt be aware by now, they are out of luck! The important thing is to (a) have a very obscure password, (b) never sign in at a publicly available PC, and (c) avoid spyware. Adrian M. H. 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It means you're famous Cliff - you must be doing something right, if people are trying to undo your good work. "my preferences" button at top of the page lets u change passwords as many times a day as you want. You can even forget and get a new code - remember only you know it unless somebody has access to your email. It could just be a mistake tho, if you're bored try Special:Listusers and search for a blue link Cliff! Mike33 - t@lk 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, gentlemen. I lean towards Mike's "famous" explanation since articles I edit are still trolled once in a while by the honey-roasted peanuts vandals. Aarktica has suggested that this item might be closed, and I agree. --CliffC 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purged copyright violations

  • Feb 15 2008

Good morning, today you reverted and purged the histories for Guillain-Barré syndrome and Serum sickness. I'm the one who reported those copyvios, and wonder if someone automatically reviews the other articles "contributed to" by the violator (probably a single editor using two IP address, one of which I have misplaced). I have notes on other suspect articles by that editor but did not want to report them until I saw how this played out for the first two. Thanks for doing what must be a tough job. --CliffC 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. It is not automatically reviewed no, I usually check the other contributions of the ip/user who added the copyvio but not always. There is already enough to check see the backlog in Wikipedia:Copyright problems. What other articles do you want to have checked and/or purged? Garion96 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
One user was 208.101.102.186. As I recall, the misplaced id was in the same IP range and in Ontario also. From my notes, these were my suspicions, but I did not tag the articles.
  • Variant copyvio of [7]
  • Prodrome copyvio of [8] although FWIW I don't see a copyright notice at the site
  • Lyme disease edit here copyvio of [9], dup string ="Sometimes Lyme presents atypically as ALS, MS, polymyalgia rheumatica, Guillain Barre, transverse myelitis, polyneuropathies of unknown aetiology, brain swelling and or tumor, severe eye disease, cardiomyopathy, hepatitis and so on", although FWIW I don't see a copyright notice at the site
  • On a more puzzling note, in his first Fibrin edit [10]he seems to have removed a copyvio of this and replaced it with a sloppy link to the original article. Mysteries abound. --CliffC 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
One wonders why some simply don't understand not to copy & paste text. I purged and/or removed the copyright violations and left the editor a warning on his talk page. Garion96 (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial or not commercial?

The link to "ZDnet preUK Security Operations Centre (SOC) bunker" is, from our perspective, is a commercial link. As certified Symantec engineers and able to assist and advise people on Symantec I added our link yesterday. If links to certified Symantec engineer sites can not be included then only Symantec should appear here. As AV engineers we are in a position to know all AV products from actual experience in many computing environments. We have a lot of information to help people with Symantec that Symantec does not publish. Actual experience and solutions that can easily be interpeted as "reviews or "news". And our links to purchase these products are the same as the ads on ZDnet. They are commercial links. ZDnet is a news publisher site. We consider the information available on news sites to be at the very least equally useful to the interested reader. All three web site types: news, reviews and certified engineer web sites are commercial so if one is here they all have to be here. Trotline trotline 10:00 am est

Commercial links are allowed in Wikipedia, although I sometimes use the phrase "commercial link" to avoid hurting any feelings with the word "spam" when reverting edits that don't add anything to an article. The site you removed, news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39237560,00.htm, is a link to a ZDnet magazine article subtitled "Inside Symantec's nuclear bunker", about Symantec's test lab. Symantec is the subject of this article, why on earth would you remove such a link? Next, I don't know much about the software business, but I'd be willing to bet Symantec has more than one "Partner" such as yourself, why should your link be here, or anywhere in Wikipedia? Take a look at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, number 3, "Links mainly intended to promote a website".
Wikipedia needs content, not links. I'm sure your organization has a lot of knowledge to contribute. For starters on how to contribute, look at item 6 in Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer and the guidelines in template {{welcomespam}}. --CliffC 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difference of opinion - external links added by and deleted by reseller

Resolved. Adrian M. H. 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone would look in on Talk:Antivirus software#External links and comment. I'm having discussions there and on one other talk page with a new editor who is a Symantec reseller who says his site's links are not being treated fairly, and who also seems to be saying that all external links are equal regardless of content, and that our link rules need to be changed. There was a short revert war which he has focused on to my bafflement, but I see the main issue as a conflict of interest on his part as well as a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. I stupidly said at one point "I don't know much about the software business, but..." and he latched tightly onto that and is questioning my qualifications in the subject area. Now we're just going round and round and spinning our wheels. Thank you. --CliffC 02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's kind of sorted itself out, thanks to a comment from a third party, but if it continues to be a problem, let us know here. I will comment then if it becomes necessary. Adrian M. H. 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with a new editor

Stale. Editor was asked to look at WP:3O. No response. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if an admin could take a look at my history with new editor User:Trgwilson. We've gotten off to a bad start and I don't think he'll be listening to anything further from me. This began when he added what I saw as a promotional link to Emmet Till; I removed it with edit summary "rv promotional link, please see WP:EL" and left this] message, not a template, on his talk page. (I was the second editor to revert and warn him for his links.) Before retiring for the night I noticed he had removed a copyright warning from his talk page without indicating there that any of the three suggested actions had been taken. I left him this message and restored the copyright warning. The next morning he began the section User_talk:CliffC#Dear_Cliff on my user page. I reviewed his contributions, reverted several plugs promoting a person at the radio station, and tagged for {{db-notability}} an article about the station's executive producer. You can see by reviewing my talk page and his where it went from there. He's gone to the Help desk to complain about my "bullying" and has threatened to turn us in for (I think) violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, as at some point he identified himself as sight-impaired and later as blind. I don't care about the lack of civility, all I'd really like is for someone to tell him to participate in Wikipedia under the same rules as everyone else. --CliffC (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This might seem redundant, but how about requesting a third opinion on the matter? As you aptly noted, the editor is probably unaware or uninformed the rules. --Aarktica (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified or unnecessary brief mentions of people or products

It would be nice to have a short section we could refer to as WP:PLUG for cases of abuse that don't rise to the level of blatant advertising or spam but are unnecessary or unjustified in the context of the article, or that simply repeat names or internal links already included in the article. I don't think there's a need for a new set of templates, but in the case of reverting edits like this, it would be nice to add an official-sounding phrase like "see WP:PLUG" to the edit summary. --CliffC (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] utilitydesign.co.uk [blacklist request]

Domain
Spam accounts
Spam diffs

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

[27] [28]

[29]

[30]

Have been spamming furniture, designer and architect (Frank Lloyd Wright) pages for several months. The registered account has been permanently blocked for spamming, the IP users keep popping up; all have received a final warning; the most recent spammings took place today by User 81.138.7.114, diffs here and here, after a final warning. --CliffC (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. thanks CliffC--Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)