Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Suhayl Saadi – Resolved. – 08:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Suhayl Saadi [watchlist?]Suhaylsaadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User Poweroid – Partially resolved. Inactive. – 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Poweroid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Poweroid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used [2], but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 [3], I feel I'm in over my head. Possible coi because:
I've removed links from the following articles, all added by Poweroid: External links to bestpricecomputers: External links to experienced-people:
I'm guessing there are many more considering how long he's been editing. --Ronz 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. — Athænara ✉ 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Result was allow: policy against company/product names as usernames had not yet been implemented when the user registered. In re conflict of interest, links, clients: It would be helpful if someone higher up the administrative chain can answer the user in re a list of clients whose links the user has added to the encyclopedia ("Please tell me how and where I can provide it") if that is the most straightforward way to clear this up. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's find a straightforward way to clear this up. Poweroid 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Additionally, he's added links to: --Ronz 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages kinda like the type Shenme thought looked perfectly OK (see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_performance_management on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names page). Poweroid 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: Poweroid admits to coi regarding choosing the name. An RfC/N resulted in allowing the username because it predates the prohibition on such names. --Ronz 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Update: Poweroid appears to have choosen his username after introducing links to poweroid-video-editing.co.uk as 213.235.36.175 (talk · contribs). 213.235.36.175 has only a few edits total, from 6 September 2004 to 18:11, 15 October 2004. This editor introduced links to bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk in the same manner that Poweroid has done. Four minutes after 213.235.36.175's last edit, Poweroid begins editing for the first time in the same articles as 213.235.36.175. --Ronz 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
From the introduction at the top of the policy page. — Athænara ✉ 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: As of today, searches for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk returns 17 matches. This is after both Tearlach and myself have removed many others. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 60 articles, mostly around December 2006. Additionally, I've requested Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to techbooksforfree.com and dogtraininghq.com. --Ronz 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: I think all the questionable links have been removed from articles at this point. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 80 articles, mostly around December 2006. I've also asked Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to pregnancyetc.com and bringingupbaby.com. I'm estimating that between November'06 and January'07 Poweroid added over 50 links to 50 different articles, all links where there's a clear coi, and most in violation of WP:ATT as well. --Ronz 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
For neutral point of view editors: please see also "Refusal to cooperate" section of this noticeboard's talk page. — Athænara ✉ 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The River Company – Inactive. – 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] The River Company [watchlist?]
I originally felt the band was not noteable, no longer so sure. But someone should advise these people to consider COI & if they still feel it is okay to edit the article, at least declare any potential COI in any voting. Probably be best if this comes from someone besides me, in case either of them read my earlier message. N.B. Michael.m.winters did mention his potential COI in the first vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The River Company 203.109.240.93 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) IP evidence: Unlikely. IPs resolve to a university in New Orleans. MER-C 08:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ars Technica – Resolved. – 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Ars Technica [watchlist?]
have been, as part of an apparent rotating crew/mob which has in the past included others, been "protecting" this article against any critical content, however cited. I gave up trying to improve this article about a year ago, and no matter how hard myself or others tried to comply with endless demands for more sources, criticism of sources (based on criteria that cannot currently be met for even the information they currently have posted), and the ignoring and/or removal of sources surreptitiously, in order to then later remove the content as uncited. Going back to look at the status of the article, I now note that there is a lot of fluff information (site redesigns?) that is of no real public interest, and the site has been completely reverted to a promotional piece/advertisement. Apparent attempt by other editors to flesh out and balance the article have been met with constant reversions. The editors protecting the article appear to consist of Ars Technica's writers, staff, and users. Conflicts of interest have been pointed out many times, and summarily ignored. -- 216.227.57.119 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Added {{importance}}. This deletionist can't be bothered listing either. MER-C 12:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to look further at the history of the article; it does need work. I'm interested in what could be being said that you've managed to form a mob of Arsians, who usually only swarm in cases of online-humor. The writers have appologized, if she wants something more slandering others is not a good way to go about it, if that's what is being done. It's been cited in some newspaper articles. Deleting it is inappropriate at this time. htom 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC) For the record, I moved the comment about the IPDemocracy incident to a different section of the page because it had no business being in the leader of the article. Imo, it still has no business being in the "NewsDesk" section. Its proper place is either in a "trivia" or "criticism" section further down the page, in keeping with similar criticism points in other articles. At no time did I remove it from the page or otherwise attempt to quash this particular criticism. In any case, isn't it more than a little hypocritical for an anonymous user to assert the existence of a "rotating crew/mob" conspiracy of covert, Ars Technica staffers, whose purpose is apparently to hide criticism of the site? I would think that at the very least such a person should provide some kind of identity and actually research their subject before throwing around such accusations, otherwise this just sounds like a case of paranoia. -- Hux 10:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC) [PS Other than posting to their forums, I am in no way affiliated with Ars Technica.]
Man, I am apparently the subject of a COI notice on an article that I haven't edited in quite a while... but nobody bothered to tell me. Hmpfh. Here's the deal, folks: This anon user who opened this COI was repeatedly attempting to make edits like this, where they were trying to add criticism of the entire web site by posting to (I kid you not) comments in a blog post. Through that time period, a series of users appeared whose only purpose was to push almost precisely the same content into the article. Here, have a look at these contributation histories that are remarkably: Dave-G. Tatsuma. Gallifr3y. El jefe04. Kristi ski. There are others, too, but that should be a sufficient example of what was being dealt with 8-12 months ago. The key here is that the person... ahem, excuse me, "people" who were pushing this information into the article were not providing any published, reliable sources as is expected of all content in Wikipedia, especially critical commentary. Squabbling in Internet forums is hardly encyclopediac material, anyhow... the whole thing just smells like sour grapes from someone whose attempt at adding their opinions to the article didn't get their way. -/- Warren 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the afd nom. About the above, have you all considered going through the steps of dispute resolution? delldot talk 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
A comparison of the current article and earlier versions such as this one (which reveals deep confusion about the difference between an encyclopedia and a webspace provider) illustrates how very much worse it has been than it is. That said, the COI/N report was made here in good faith and the article does need the attention which the report attracted to it. — Athænara ✉ 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No activity here in five days, I'm guessing this is done? -/- Warren 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
James Bullock – Deleted – 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] James Bullock [watchlist?]JimmyBullock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) so smacks of self created vanity article, even if it is detailed. --Blowdart 13:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC) - Created by user
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Grand L. Bush – Inactive. – 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Grand L. Bush [watchlist?]
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Cave Clan – Inactive. – 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Cave Clan [watchlist?]
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Richard Chapman – Resolved. – 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Richard Chapman [watchlist?]Appears that Web design company is adding articles for clients.
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of Iberian Jews – Resolving elsewhere—not WP:COI. – 03:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] List of Iberian Jews [watchlist?]
I don't think this is a problem involving WP:COI, though it sounds like a problem involving WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Have you tried getting assistance through the various dispute resolution steps? Vassyana 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if this gets re-directed to a dispute resolution forum, you should still collect diffs to back up your point. The aggressive edits regarding Columbus and Cervantes sound like the strongest part of your case. Can you provide the diffs here, and the pointers to the non-reliable sources that were offered? It's clear that there is a dispute (you versus User:Newport), and page protection is unlikely to be granted when the edits being questioned are due to just one user. If editors in addition to Newport are involved, you should mention that too. EdJohnston 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand 'conflict of interest in the sense of advertisement.' What do you think is being advertised? EdJohnston 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, this should not be here as there is no conflict of interest on my part. Obviously, this is a case for mediation, and Mehmeda should have asked for this. Other editors and I have had disagreements with Mehmeda, for example his unilateral attempt to rename "List of German Jews" to "List of Jews from Germany", but this is the first time that he has escalated a disagreement in this way. I am ready and willing to participate in mediation. However, since Mehmeda makes unfounded allegations against me I shall respond to those. I did not originally add Cervantes to any list. On the List of Iberian Jews, Cervantes was added here [15]. A user (subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry) kept deleting him and several different users restored him. Eventually, as a compromise with the user who kept deleting him, Cervantes and Columbus were moved to a sub-list; they were later moved back to the main list, and the sub-list deleted, as a tidying-up exercise. This is all quite clear from the history. I added neither of them to List of Sephardic Jews (it was Mibelz, and if this is a serious compaint rather than an attempt to harass me, why was he not cited) [16], nor have I manoeuvred them from list to list. The theory that Columbus was Jewish is scarcely a fringe theory, [[Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "it has been claimed that he was a converted Jew". The eminent historian Cecil Roth states in Encyclopaedia Judaica: "The mystery regarding Columbus' origins is largely the outcome of his own mendacity: and as a result it is equally impossible to exclude or to confirm the hypothesis that he was descended from a Jewish or ex-Jewish family." As for Cervantes, the Encyclopaedia Judaica cites three references that say that he was Jewish:
Fringe theories unworthy of mentioning on Wikipedia are rarely given such credence by leading encyclopaedias. Where have I cited Wikipedia mirrors? As Mibelz added the names to the Sephardic list, he may well have more evidence. The best that can be said is that the case is not proved, and should be flagged as dubious. This was clear when these names were on the sub-list and it is unfortunate that the caveats were lost when they were moved back, but they can easily be restored. The allegation of sockpuppetry against me is an irrelevance; it was dealt with over a year ago, and I was unblocked. RachelBrown never edited that list.-Newport 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we just clarify - what makes something cited by the Encyclopaedia Britannica a fringe theory as opposed to a legitimate minority opinion? And why is Anne J. Cruz so much more reliable than the otther sources? As I said, there were at one point clear caveats on these entries which have, unfortunately been lost - let's restore them and have done with it.--Newport 21:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The sooner this goes to mediation the better.--Runcorn 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Labrador Retriever – Resolved. – 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Labrador Retriever [watchlist?]
Although they have discontinued attempting to change other people edits directly, they do still fill the talk page with claims that "anti-silver elitists" are oppressing "legitimate" silver breeders, that they have papers saying their dog's registered color is "silver," and so on. Their most recent argument is that the Labrador Retriever Club, which is the labrador parent organization for the American Kennel Club, is just a "club" even though they have continuously tried to use the AKC in their arguments. They have never provided any proof for their claims. I probably shouldn't have continued replying to this person, though I did mention COI twice. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought this one (probably the same user) had gotten a clue and stopped by now, but no: still active with bombastic and threatening edit summaries. — Æ. ✉ 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Techniques of Knowledge – Resolved. – 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Techniques of Knowledge [watchlist?]Two contributors Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) have made a solemn promise during initiation not to reveal these meditation techniques. They say that the article violates WP:NOT for being an instruction manual because they include descriptions of the meditiation techniques that they deem as instructions. RFC has been filed and yielded supportive reactions for inclusions of the descriptions, but Momento keeps reverting. Andries 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
(resetting ident) While Momento (talk · contribs) and Jossi (talk · contribs) may have a favourable view of the subject, both have been courteous and flexible during my experience there as a third party. Jossi invited me to try and craft a compromise version after I responded to the RFC.[22] I provided my first draft of a suggested compromise to provide a description of the techniques while addressing the WP:NOT concerns, stored in a user subpage to avoid edit warring on the article.[23] Jossi expressed his support for this version.[24] Momento also endorsed the compromise, with a small reservation.[25] I made a minor edit to address that concern.[26] I feel that Momento and Jossi have both shown a willingness to be flexible on this issue. Additionally, Memento even pointed out that while practitioners are prohibited from revealing the techniques, they are not required to stop others from doing so.[27] On a final note, Andries (talk · contribs) has been sanctioned by ArbCom for his behaviour in pushing an "anti-Guru" POV recently. (Please reference here and here.) This should be considered when reviewing complaints by Andries on relevent topics. Vassyana 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Damone (band) – Copyvio, reverted – 11:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Damone (band) [watchlist?]
There are so many things wrong with the article and with the situation. I sorted through a dozen or more templates and ended up choosing {{primarysources}}, {{copypaste}}, {{inappropriate tone}}, {{inappropriate person}}, and {{Essay-entry}} for starters. — Athænara ✉ 11:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No sign of our copyvio guys since 17 March, will close by end of the month if this remains to be true. MER-C 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User Formerthings – Spam reverted. – 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Formerthings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)Formerthings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- editor adding links to Biblical site formerthings.com. --TedFrank 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Jarrad Larmand – Deleted – 11:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Jarrad Larmand [watchlist?]
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
David Westerfield – Open proxy blocked – 10:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] David Westerfield [watchlist?]
On second thoughts, the IP is likely to be an Open proxy.. Listed on WP:OP. MER-C 06:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There are three (longer) unresolved discussions of the same problem in WP:BLP/N archives 2, 4 and 7. — Athænara ✉ 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for five years as an open proxy. MER-C 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
DirectNET – Speedied as spam – 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] DirectNET [watchlist?]
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overton De Los Santos – Speedied – 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Overton De Los Santos [watchlist?]The Commission (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) producing various unsourced articles about some football supporters club. Tearlach 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Clouds Blur the Rainbow – Inactive. – 12:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Clouds Blur the Rainbow [watchlist?]
Both parties in this dispute have COI and this matter should be handled accordingly. Yakuman 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
MapText – Speedied, corporate vanity – 13:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] MapText [watchlist?]Article vanity created by user MapText (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). User responded to my original db-spam on the discussion page with an admission they are the company adding themselves. --Blowdart 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Andy Miah – Editor in question hasn't edited for a month, hence inactive. – 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Andy Miah [watchlist?]
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Warnborough College – Resolved. – 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Warnborough College [watchlist?]
The users above (or single user as may be the case) have shown a suspiciously keen interest in making sure Warnborough College's reputation is not harmed on Wikipedia. Warnborough's user page talks in the first person as a representative of Warnborough College, and the IP 80.229.135.241 resolves to warnb0r0.plus.com (as do IPs 80.229.135.240 through 80.229.135.243). That IP is also shown as having made constructive edits to information about Warnborough College on Warnborough's user page. Indeed, my guess is that this IP has been static since at least Nov 14, 2004 when this user began to leave strongly opinionated comments about education (and never any other subject). To my knowledge, only corporate or educational IPs remain so static. Paging through each user's history will reveal a rich tradition of blanking unfavorable comments regarding Warnborough College and engaging in spirited debate (rightly or wrongly) involving Warnborough College's reputation. You will also find numerous warnings on the talk pages for misbehavior on the Warnborough College page. In short, I am suggesting that the users above may either be the same person or work together at Warnborough College, creating a strong conflict of interest when editing the article on Warnborough College or any other articles on education as has already been shown. --67.188.0.96 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Confirmed User:Warnborough, admits to it on his user page.
I want to be clear that I have no particular interest in Warnborough College, but the initial changes became known to me while watching the "recent changes" page. It is unfortunate that this user who might otherwise have valuable contributions to this article cannot control himself and edit within the Wikipedia guidelines and manual of style. --67.188.0.96 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Beer rating – Deleted – 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Beer rating [watchlist?]
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.) – Deleted – 09:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.) [watchlist?]
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
David Ewing Duncan – Copyvio, deleted – 09:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] David Ewing Duncan [watchlist?]
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme – Discussion at Talk:Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme – 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Highly_Skilled_Migrant_ProgrammeThe HSMP article was hopelessly out of date when I re-wrote it to bring it up to date with current immigration law. HSMP is a points based method of UK immigration. A link was placed to an online assessment tool (HSMP points calculator) - this is based at my website and was the first to be updated when the new rules were announced, with many sites not updating their information for a month or longer. Using this requires no registration or personal details whatsoever. Some, and I mean only some, of the people that use this assessment tool will ask my company for an assessment, but we do not charge for this. Access to the assessment tool, by way of the link previously placed, should be considered entirely relevant to the article and of use to those reading the article. I always ensure that this is kept up to date with changes in immigration law, therefore the link will continue to be correct and of use. This link is persistently being removed on the basis that there is an alleged conflict of interest. It appears that if a link was placed to anyone elses assessment tool then that would be ok, but as I wrote the article I should not have any link, regardless of how relevant or useful this is. The person removing the link would appear not to object to a link to an assessment tool but appears to strongly object to the link on the basis that it goes to an assessment tool on my site. I would like someone to arbitrate on this and revert the article to include the link to the HSMP points calculator. My feeling is that this is a link which should be viewed as being relevant and useful and one that would be placed in any other circumstances. Spooky69 09:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
William Miller (architect) – on afd, consensus for delete – 09:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] William Miller (architect) [watchlist?]
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Self-organization processes of prime integer relations – Deleted – 10:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Self-organization processes of prime integer relations [watchlist?]This article, almost entirely the creation of Korotkikh, cites four published papers, all authored by, er, V. Korotkikh. I strongly suspect non-notability and CoI, but I'd appreciate some help on where to take this from here. Philip Trueman 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |