Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Futureobservatory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Futureobservatory (talk • contribs • logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

The user is continually adding content that is copied from his website, material appears to be from books by David Mercer. The user claims to be David Mercer; and while I am enclined to believe him,

He has not answered when asked to provide some evidence.
Even if he is the author, the books were published and the editor may hold the rights.

What's more, he tends to add links to his website on nearly all of his edits.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

... and well, a good chunk (but not all) of Special:Contributions/Futureobservatory

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Flammifer 04:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yom 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

RHaworth. I am satisfied that he is David Mercer - who else would want to link to his pages? All his submissions are little more than link-spam. Since he obviously spends very little time on his submissions here, we need not worry about reverting all of them speedily. 04:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Sorry, I have been away from my computer for some time, and have come back to find that my work has been disputed a number of times; and seemingly 'reverted' without much consideration of its merits. As you will see, from my CV, the material I have added was based on more than 15 years research at the highest international level; where I was an acknowledged expert in my various fields. Moreover, almost all the material is directly derived from publications which have achieved widespread acceptance (including 'Marketing' with sales of 50,000 copies and 'IBM' with sales of 20,000 copies). I am sorry that your editors believe this material is so worthless that it should be 'reverted' without any serious consideration of its merits. This is not the sort of academic peer review I am used to. My links to parts of my own website are merely intended to idetify who the author is, and provide a context (and legitimation) as well as a route for the reader to further material. They have no commercial value. In terms of copyright, as I have said a number of times, I hold copyright to all my submissions and have willingly agreed to its use by Wikipedia. A visit to my website will confirm this - or talk to my publishers or simply look at the several dozen books and 60+ papers in a library. What I do not want to do is to waste hours of my time, and years of experience, contributing material which is immediately thrown on the waste heap!Futureobservatory 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.