User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

No DRV required: just add admin

Well, no, no DRV was needed. WP:DPR says (or rather it said, people keep changing these things when I'm not looking) that a non-admin close of an XfD could be reversed by an admin, for any reason, or for no reason at all, without needing to go to DRV.

The fact is that I only started closing CfDs because it seemed like it needed doing and it's not like there's usually much room for error. Nothing actually gets deleted by the closer anyway. I thought that closing a few CfDs a day would be enough to get it un-backlogged, but it seems that if I close X CfDs a day, the result is not X more CfDs are closed each day. Instead, whoever would have closed those CfDs seems to do something else. I wonder what happens if I stop. Do those CfDs get closed by whoever would have done it before, but doesn't now, or does the backlog get even bigger?

I was in Boston on business (officially, but really a holiday). It was great! If you're ever tempted to leave it for Cincinatti or Dayton, don't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. EdJohnston 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Logic of Violence in Civil Wars

I got the cover from some editorial website, but Stathis Kalyvas, the author of the book, is my Professor (and friend) here at Yale and I asked him about that and he was embarrased/happy about the fact that I uploaded that entry to the Wikipedia. In that sense, it is a bit weird to see the image being deleted, because I had the greatest of the several ways to get an authorization from the author: in person, directly. :) Can you do something to upload any cover? --poldavo 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a copy of the book and a digital camera, can you take a photo of it? The rules for uploading are much easier for someone who owns the photo. If you think you might do this, I can supply the additional steps needed. EdJohnston 06:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that as soon as I finish a paper I am working on. The deadline is so close!! Thanks. :) --poldavo 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Finding ISBN-10 and company

Hi EdJ! -- No, I don't have any secrets for finding these. I'm just using Google and isolating to en.wikipedia.org. Then I get frustrated since clearing the cache does not reduce the number of hits after I fix a bunch, even after a couple days. (I'm using Mozilla on Windows in case you have any ideas.) Keesiewonder ^talk 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not about ISBNs, but close: Please see this. I've looked high and low and cannot find this information. Can you think of a way of adjusting each of these articles such that the ISSN is not called for? Or, do you think these are candidates for an AfD? If the journals are noteworthy, it shouldn't be so hard to verify them ... Thanks for your thoughts. Keesiewonder ^talk 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Last time I looked, issn.org was offering a temporary 30-day membership for free. Someone who was very devoted could make a list of everything on WP that needs an ISSN, sign up for the temporary membership, and look everything up! I may get around to it eventually. I do suspect that some of these game magazines never bothered to get an ISSN, though. Generally anything that is held in a Worldcat library, if an ISSN exists, they will show it. Somehow games are not noble enought for Worldcat. EdJohnston 01:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit of discussion. Of course, I could still argue that each series of guidebooks does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. Keesiewonder ^talk 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• A little update; at the moment I'm using AWB on a database dump to find ASINs that aren't using the template ... I end up doing most of the editing outside of AWB though. Keesiewonder ^talk 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ISSN template stuff

Do you have an opinion on this plus this? Keesiewonder ^talk 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Thanks for your input on the conflict of interesting Noticeboard. I've updated that entry with a good summary of concerns I have at this point. In short, while Genghis has gone through and cleaned up the majority of pov edits that were made by him, I'm concerned about his continued editing of the article based on several issues.--Crossmr 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Overflow discussion from WP:COI/N, concerning Ars Technica
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the kind of thing which is giving me red flags. In this edit he claims to have received revenue [1], and then in a subsequent edit he claims no financial relationship to the website [2].--Crossmr 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, obviously the financial connection isn't huge, but its more than just the financial benefit. Look at all connections as a whole. No one has a conflict of interest (Well almost) if you dissect each and every issue on its own and don't look at the bigger picture, the bigger picture shows several connections and several issues all rolled into a single individual. We got financial benefit (albeit small), exposure and recognition from the creator (which can actually increase his financial benefit), attempts to put his profile into the article through an IP (which can increase his financial benefit), and an obvious enthusiast approach which he's attempted to cover up and multiple instances of him making misleading claims in regards to his relationship or attitude towards the subject. In addition to that he's the primary contributor to the article. There really isn't any other way that can be spun, that adds up to one huge and on-going neutrality issue. It puts other editors in a position of scrutinizing his edits more closely to ensure they're completely neutral. Were it a single one of these issues, or were he just a minor passing through contributor, I wouldn't see this as an issue, but thats not the case here. To me, if I had these kinds of known connections to a subject, whether I felt I could edit neutrally or not, I would stay away from it.--Crossmr 06:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC) We should include the fact that whenever the article or he gets in trouble now, the creator of the website shows up to try and save the day. I think that demonstrates a clear closeness to the subject [3].--Crossmr 14:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A bid for your input

This is a sort of begging letter, because I am left speechless by an editor who reverted (see "Student writing staff" section) this version to this version and insisted in an article talk page post that "There is nothing wrong with using a copied list from a website." Help? Some of your characteristic civilised straight-from-the-shoulder policy plain talk? — Athænara ✉ 07:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussions of CampusJ, Aaron Klein, and Bloodless Bullfighting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks, and nothing wrong with being speechless. I put in my two cents there. Perhaps the new contributor will be moved to add some useful material if we reason with him. (I noticed he's different from the article creator, but he does know the subject somewhat, judging by his addition). By the way, the latest AK changes look all right, and are externally referenced now! Your persistent efforts seem to have had an effect. EdJohnston 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I don't think Urthogi (talk · contribs) sees a distinction between an encyclopedia article and duplicating website content because, hey, Wikipedia is just free content hosting [not]. In re AK, I guess you meant 89.138.166.212 (talk · contribs) changes last week - I concur. Since then, 217.132.234.44 (talk · contribs) stepped in to add the "nightly audience of 8 million listeners" bit again. — Æ. ✉ 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC) And another bid… You may remember the Bloodless bullfighting discussion (now in archive 3) on COI/N. There's an Afd on it. I looked through the archive for the earlier participants and you were the missing one! Not counting the, ah, proponent, whose un-civil and anti-NPA ways tend to intimidate the rest of us. — Athænara ✉ 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)   — Whoops, it was already deleted! — Æ. ✉ 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, I was dimly aware of forgetting something. Interesting that the AfD closed with so few votes. Perhaps we should give credit to the noticeboard for that, because there was already a lengthy previous discussion to refer to. So our work is not in vain! Would you be in favor of adding an 'AfD' section at the top of the noticeboard? At present AfDs are mentioned by participants only in passing. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth there is a whole section for AfDs and CfDs, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics a major heading is created for each new AfD that someone becomes aware of. I don't think this is canvassing. We would only list the AfDs of articles that had already been submitted to the noticeboard as having a COI. EdJohnston 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I think that's a good idea. How about posting it for discussion on the noticeboard talk page? — Athænara ✉ 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I think it is only fair to say that I need to defend myself here.... since people think so "highly" of me. For starters, I am NOT this "anti"-NPA person, nor am I "uncivil" either. Since I became a member of Wikipedia, I have been brutally attacked and accused by "editors" who think they know everything, and accuse me of advertising. First off, any "newbie" has NO idea what Wikipedia is all about. "We" newbies assume that it is an open forum to write articles. Then when we do start writing articles, we are slapped with numerous violations which go unexplained. Honestly, who has time to read everything that is on Wikipedia? We do have a life you know. In any case, slowly but surely "us newbies" eventually will get it. But in the meantime, we certainly do not appreciate the constant attack and deletion of articles and photos we submit.... especially by "so-called editors/users... (Fethers)" who think they know it all. When our hard work gets deleted with no type of warning, how do you expect anyone to respond to such an "unrespectable" manner? It is quite interesting that I was not informed of the "Bloodless Bullfighting article.... since I am the "one" who created it. And this was my same argument to Fethers who had some of my photos deleted. I KNOW for a fact that there is a process and guideline to articles and photos getting deleted. It is very interesting that this Fethers person seems to be able to have some sort of "fast" delete on every item that I have uploaded. What is also interesting is that NOBODY even mentions that Fethers is an "anti"-NPA, because his first contact words to me were to "shove it". In closing, I would appreciate that you or anyone else do not "ASSUME" that you think you know me or what I am about. I am by far an "uncivil" person... nor am I "anti" anything positive. What I am "anti" about is people who presume me guilty before getting to know me at all. And before you continue with you accusations of me, why don't you take the words "No personal attacks" to heart, because by writing that I am "uncivil" and "anti-NPA".... that in itself is a "personal attack".... regardless of what you or anyone else thinks..... whether it is written in the "wiki" books.... any form of negativity is an attack towards someone's innocence. Yours truly~the Diva --Webmistress Diva 06:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Because it seems that I have to constantly prove myself and my innocence, here's proof that Fethers is the contributing factor to this drama and that he is the one who provoked me. Here's a comment noted on his user page about being "civil" [[4]] And here's where Fethers told me to stuff it... [[5]] I am not an intimidating person, so I don't think "intimidation" is the correct word, rather let's just say that some people are not comfortable with my "brutal" honesty and approach. It's all very simple... Fethers had my images removed without any type of notification or warning to me, I went on his user page and asked him about it, he then attacked me and told me to stuff it and went on with sarcasm... and if I'm not mistaken, there is an underlying racism in his tone of choice words too. And from then on, it has been this long, draining, battle with the bloodless bullfighting article.... that he can't just let go. But looking at Fethers history, this person has a "need" to delete things. It does not make him smarter or more intelligent.... it just means he has plenty of free time. --Webmistress Diva 02:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

SBN

Sounds good; only question I have - I don't really follow ISBN history as closely as some - is regarding SBN in the second sentence ... i.e. SBN, not ISBN? --Keesiewonder ^talk 09:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Rich contributed that word with an intervening change that I noticed only after checking in mine. Perhaps it should be spelled out, since Standard Book Number is now a less-familiar term? Interesting to note that SBN is now obsolete the same way ISBN-10 will (we assume) be obsolete one day. SBNs may still be usable, though when you run into one it's very confusing since it looks like a mistyped ISBN. Can you suggest a rewording to make the situation more clear? SBN is explained (though tersely) in the first paragraph of ISBN. EdJohnston 13:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• You could link to the SBN disambiguation page ... or the ISBN page (which mentions SBN till '74) ... or write a blurb for a "Standard Book Number" article and link to that. I guess of those options, I'd vote to link SBN to the ISBN page. Keesiewonder ^talk 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Made an edit to User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult

Ed, I am not the guru in the COI Noticeboard rules, so I guess you know more than me about the customs there. I just provided a tool for them in a hope that it might be useful. Regarding putting human found cases into the bot found I am not sure I like the idea. Human results are much more reliable than the bot's it would be pity if they are lost within the many unreliable bot's data. Theoretically bot could malfunction and overwrite its page instead of just adding staff. It never did it before and the changes are in the history anyway but the human finding might be safer in the noticeboard itself. Alex Bakharev 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I got everything wrong. Of course I do not mind striking out a technical article. The bot put in the list because the author used his nick in an example of the code. The bot got it wrong and you did an absolutely right thing. Alex Bakharev 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you want other editors who investigate these hits to follow the same procedure? If so, some words should be added to the noticeboard as to what to do. I imagine that if something is a real conflict, and the article has problems, then a proper noticeboard entry should be opened up. EdJohnston 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

COI at Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Article?

Please see:

[[6]].

I saw your commment to Philosophus about TM advocates exhibiting COI on the TM article. While what you said about the difficulties of elminating religious COIs has validity, keep in mind that TM's legal and PR claim is that they are not a religion at all and the Maharishi is not a religious figure, and that issue is also affected by COI. Currently, a TM advocate who has a long time association with the Maharhishi University is claiming that MMY is seen mainly as a secular and scientific figure, and blocking any mention of the controversy around MMY's religious role and relation to his religious tradition and practices, which include the paranormal claims like "yogic flying", as being a manufuctured issue designed by a few to "delegitimize the Maharishi". I think a solid case can be made for COI affecting edits of controversial and critical information at the related MMY article, and that it is difficult to keep NPOV in these TM articles with so much COI edits by backers of the group. Can you give me some advice on how to navigate this issue?--Dseer 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I hate to bother you here again but I ask you to pay close attention to the editing philosophy of the TM folks and not just their pleasant manner. This from Transcendental Meditation (talk) at the bottom about a proposed major revision of the TM and Religion section by TM members, and this is the stated rational for disagreeing with including Mason and the University of Virginia's Religious Movements Hompage [[7]] as a link, and the allowed weights for addressing the controvery about whether TM involves religion:

• I am bound by the article's length. This article has been criticized for its length. I can't build up one bank of the river without building up the other. This will create unmanageable length. I will try to compress some material to shorten the article.I don't feel it should be lengthened given past comments by non-TM editors.
• I feel bound to use some of the original material which I did
• I consider Cardinal Sin to be the most objective source on TM and religion I found, and by far the most expert. His statements are not emotional or personally driven.His statements do not indicate personal involvement. He is a leader in a major Christian religion. This gives his statements weight and authority. I believe this makes him as neutral as is possible so a very strong source.I used some of the material. There is no room for all of it. Anyone who wants more can go to the source. Its clearly marked.
• I am confident in this article's objectivity given its length. I can't say more. Best wishes. (Olive)

Thanks, Olive. Good points. (TimidGuy).

Ed, I understand you need to stay neutral here, but I hope you agree that article length is not a policy or a guideline and doesn't trump non-negotiable NPOV, it simply requires more concise editing of balanced material. No problem with using some of the original material but the selection and deletion of critical material affects NPOV. A short statement on Catholic bulletin board type site by Cardinal Sin that TM does not absolve sin and is not Christian just isn't the best critical source for the subject at hand, particularly while providing as rebuttal a nice long article by a Catholic Priest to the contrary. Yet TimidGuy agrees. I sincerely hope you and others begin to see the problem COI based interpretations of Wikipedia and decisions about appropriate weight, the sense of article ownership, and the problems fruitless, repetitive discussions on the same points are causing. We desperately need a neutral person with administrative powers to deal with the COI to make Wikipedia work there. Just because the damage is incremental doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with once it is documented, IMO.--Dseer 06:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My objection to the article on the Religious Movements home page is that it was written by two students in a 200-level sociology course and has many spelling, grammar, and factual errors. I've pointed this out to Dseer. The sentence referencing Mason has never been properly cited. Dseer, if you have the book it would be great if you could insert a page number and bibliographic citation. TimidGuy 11:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. I just realized that the reviews on the publisher's site for the 2005 edition could possibly be reviews of the 1994 edition. For example, it gives a review from Amazon, but I checked Amazon, and that review is indeed for the 1994 edition. Seems like, if we decide that this book is indeed scholarly and unbiased, then we should prefer the 1994 edition, given the limited availability of the 2005 edition and that it's apparently self publihsed. The 1994 copy that I ordered is hardcover, so that's encouraging. Also, the books put out by the publisher of the 1994 edition, although they run toward magic and that sort of thing, are in a similiar vein -- suggesting that it's not a vanity press. Which is encouraging. The info that you found was helpful. One downside is that it's not in many libraries -- about 120 worlwide according to OCLC -- so libraries haven't shown a lot of interest. One litmus test will be if it has an index and the kinds of sources he cites. And how much of his own opinion and agenda he interjects. I'm hopeful that my impressions of Mason are wrong and that this will be a fair and balanced source. Of course, one would prefer a book from a major or university press, but we'll just have to see. Thanks again for pointing me to info about the publisher. TimidGuy 10:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, any chance you've been following the BLP discussions on Wiki-ENl? TimidGuy 10:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Since I have not carefully read Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and I haven't seen the Mason book, I have no idea whether to believe the information contained in it. I'm glad you ordered it, so you'll be able to tell us more about it. I don't know the full story on the Cardinal Sin citation, but the link that I did see, one that claimed to be quoting his words, did not look reliable enough for Wikipedia. EdJohnston 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking another look at the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article, it seems to me that the section on the Beatles is reasonably balanced. Since the Beatles' visit to the Maharishi is part of his personal history, and thus part of his biography, I wouldn't mind seeing this edit restored. It looks as though John Lennon's disaffection with the Maharishi was real, even though he might have been given some wrong information.

One more general comment. Since Mason's book is somewhat hard to find, it may not be a particularly influential source. It ought to be much easier to find articles on TM and the Maharishi in major newspapers and magazines. If there is any well-sourced criticism to be found, some of it could have made its way into those articles. EdJohnston 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear that you're up on the discussion regarding BLP. I realized I could add a phrase regarding Sexie Sadie to the sentence on Lennon believing the rumors, which would be in the spirit of the consensus to not give this undue weight while still including this tidbit. Seems 95% of the TM coverage is positive, related to the research. Maharishi as a person doesn't get much coverage. Maybe Dseer has sources. I'll pass along your point about the Cardinal Sin reference to Olive.

I had an inspiration yesterday about how to deal with the Maharishi article -- an approach that couple perfectly satisfy opponents, proponents, and Wikipedia policies. The source of my idea was the BLP advice to be understated. It occurred to me that we could simply outline the various things Maharishi has introduced over the years. (Actually, I know someone who's already been planning to do this.) Much of it, like Yogic Flying, would just sound nutty to many people and put Maharishi in a bad light, especially if we could document how expensive it all is. We could simply state the facts. Ironically, this approach would at the same time thrill adherents, who believe these offerings from the Vedic tradition will save the world. And it would satisfy Wikipedia policies because it would be simple facts, well sourced, stated in a neutral way.

The items would include the TM-Sidhi program (which, when first introduced in the 1970s, promised supernormal powers), Ayurvedic Medicine (which includes diagnosing disease by feeling the pulse), Sthapatya Veda architecture (which is said to promote greater health, happiness, mental clarity, and success for occupants), Maharishi Jyotish (astrology), Maharishi Yagya (the purchase of Vedic ceremonies performed by pandits to assist one's health, prosperity, etc.), and Maharishi Vedic Vibration (healing via the use of Vedic sounds). Each should be short and simply stated and sourced. They would be presented chronologically as Maharishi has introduced them. TimidGuy

Brouhaha

Hi Ed. I've been following your discussion with Orangemarlin on his talk page and determinedly biting my tongue to avoid getting caught up in more discussion with him. Thanks for your sensible comments. I hope you appreciate why I find OM's behavior toward me so offensive and frustrating. I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to improve Evolution and related articles, particularly by trying to limit the neverending battles with creationists so that we can focus on improving the articles. I felt like it was beginning to have a positive impact, so I've been willing to put in the work, but this recent brouhaha is pretty discouraging. It's particularly maddening to constantly be baited to try and prove I'm not a creationist. If doing anything on Wikipedia is going to mean constantly dealing with stuff like this, then, as people in the real world are beginning to remind me, I have much better things to do with my time. Your advice would be appreciated. Gnixon 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell me you attend secret meetings of the Creationist Cabal after work.. You can tell me here, no-one else will know! EdJohnston 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a dose of the best medicine.  :) Gnixon 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I tried to be clear that I was suggesting only a reorganization of the sections and headings of Evolution, one that left the content pretty much untouched, not a major rewrite. Gnixon 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Crikeys. Please help. Gnixon 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring a Talk page assumes consensus, and others can sometimes object. It would be better if he had asked first, since you put a bit of work into it. This remark from OM's talk page could be a clue:

I actually complained about the organization of the discussion. It used to have archives that described previous discussions, so you could refer back to the old archives. I used them to fight some creationists in my children's local school district, and they were quite helpful. I assume that Gnixon has messed up the archives for some good reason, but I can't tell what it is. All I know is that I can no longer find what is going on.

I used to understand the archives of this page, but I don't currently. If you have done work on the archives, I wonder if you understand what OM is talking about. EdJohnston 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. When he brought it up in some other discussion, I wondered if he was blaming me for that older archive disappearing because he'd seen me implementing your hat/hab idea. I seem to remember once upon a time that the page had topical archives (trying to find in history), but they've been gone since at least last July (as far as I've gotten in the history). I was thinking about making a table of links to common discussions in the archives. It's funny---when OM and I discussed the older archives before, I mentioned that I "assumed" someone switched to simple by-date archiving out of laziness. One might conclude that I didn't change the archives but could think of one good reason for doing so. I honestly think there may be some reading comprehension issues involved here. Gnixon 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that OM is talking about some POV-fork talk subpages like my more recent "Evolution debates" idea. They were listed at the top of the page below the comment:

This talk page is for the discussion of issues related to evolution. If your comment is related to creation science, intelligent design or the relevence of religious views to evolution please post your comment on this talk subpage where discussion of such matters more commonly takes place. You may find that your comment is moved to this subpage if others feel it is of the above nature.

They were deleted on 3/18/2005 by User:Raul654 with the just the comment "Prune down headers at top of page." Gnixon 05:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Raul654 was only removing part of the text at the top of the page. To look for all the subpages of Talk:Evolution, this command should work.

These subpages, the ones that used to be named in the header, really still exist as subpages:

Talk:Evolution/Micro vs Macro

Talk:Evolution/Content and Theory of Evolution

Talk:Evolution/Genetic drift

Talk:Evolution/Misc

Talk:Evolution/Inheritance and genetics

Talk:Evolution/Creationism

In fact, there are still 27 subpages besides the archives, so there is even more stuff to look at! EdJohnston 13:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. As you may or may not have noticed, I've bumped heads with User:TxMCJ and again with User:Orangemarlin. As a result, I will no longer be contributing to Evolution or its talk page. I've always approved of your efforts to keep the talk page clean, and I hope you'll continue them; thanks for the recent cleanup. Regarding Miszabot, please consider that arguments between TxMCJ and I have recently added a great volume of text to Talk:Evolution in a short period of time---since I'll no longer be there, the page might not grow so fast anymore, so it might make sense to return to longer archival settings than 7 days. Good luck and best regards, Gnixon 04:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Re: Your comment at the reference desk about NYT, soy milk and Vitamin D

I could try and send you the file uuencoded (probably too long, though), but I suppose you know a better way of sending files through "E-mail this user" ;-). Rl 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sent you an email, so you can reply using your normal email program and attach a binary file. EdJohnston 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Univ of Washington project to add photographs to Wikipedia -- WP:EL policy concerns?

Replied on my user talk page -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

re: email (COI issue)

Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with this at the moment, perhaps over the Easter weekend. I'll probably get them to summarise what they've said so far in 100 words or less and if they can't then we'll close it as hopelessly vague. MER-C 09:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's worse than I thought. OpenOffice.org 2.0 registers the discussion length at exactly 17 A4 pages long in 12pt font. It appears I need to step in a bit earlier than I thought... MER-C 10:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Juice Plus

Ed, this quote is taken straight from the link that Rhode Island Red published. As I have a COI, I am going to address it here and let you decide what should be done as far as the article and statement of facts that are on it.

"Supplement Facts: On September 23, 1997, FDA published a final rule in the Federal Register implementing the nutrition labeling provisions of DSHEA. As of March 23, 1999, the effective date of the regulation, all dietary supplements must bear nutrition information entitled "Supplement Facts." This labeling is similar to nutrition content labeling for conventional foods but is tailored to the special characteristics of dietary supplements."

Juice Plus+'s Garden, Orchard and Vineyard blends are classified as food which is why their label clearly states "Nutrition Facts". This issue is overlooked by those who are clearly gunning for the product. This isn't opinion, it is fact.

Not sure what if anything should be done about this, but I know I am not the one who is going to do it. Thank you for your time and consideration of this ridiculously and intensely edited article. I think it is save to say that the two sides will never agree and Wiki has become the battlefield. Julia 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much

Hi, Ed. It's a relief that the complaint against me has been archived. In retrospect I'm really embarrassed by it all. I never should have let myself get drawn into such a lengthy exchange. I really appreciate that you took the time to study the situation, and I really appreciated your comments -- both related to the Maharishi article complaint and the earlier Transcendental Meditation complaint. Not sure what the next step is. I guess I'll just continue and hope that things work out. TimidGuy 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong WiKi admin

Before the last Talk from me can be again changed by a modified content I send you a copy back. I never make any Piracy and the real XINGTECH.org site is false and a proxy made by MDSAMERICA I nevver said to Fayssalf any and fayssalf never ask any question to me but fayssalf are probably paid by SHaik Ali Khalifa Al Sabah owner of Al fawares Owner of MDSAmerica paid 300.000.000 US$ by the pentagon to rebuild IRAK news paperAl Sabah and protect the Iraki government and sue by Lyodds and KOTC for siphoning KOTC funds in Kuweit but all my previous answers and Talks are reverted or modified by Various WIKI admin paid by this guys !!! 83.206.63.250 18:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC) mds@mds.fr Xingtech software is legally distributed by MDSI? User:Jeanclauduc offered this response when User:FayssalF asked him about the matter of the Xingtech Streamserver software. The way he phrased it makes it sound illegal:

nous n'avons fait que changer le nom pour le commercialiser sous notre nom. Comme nous sommes une société française, les américains ne viendrons pas nous chercher et nous poursuivre.

('All we did is change the name, to commercialize it under our name. As we are a French company, the Americans won't come here to prosecute us').

Let's hope that Jean-Claude is willing to clarify this a little further. EdJohnston 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All Talk are change by the Admin members of the gang and is full False Now All in this pages of Talk are false the original TALK are still change and modified by WIKI admin working all for MDSAMERICA various account are made and my TALK or answers are modified in real time or in a short time after by Fabrice Ducasse the Product manager of MDSAmerica and Harold Kirpatrick the CEO of MDS america all of my Talk and informations and right adresses are modified, Franckly WIKIPEDIA are a very bad system if what I write now are modified and also all testimonies are lies if anybody have a problem this are easy to ask to the court to make case against us we wait this with pleasure.

All of this pages are shooted by the Baillif to give to the French court in Lyon for the criminal case against Fabrice Ducasse the product manager of MDSAMERICA stealing MDSinternational Hypercable and also for Breach of trust for the profit of Shaick Ali Khalifa Al Sabah Holder of Al Fawares and of MDSAmerica. Can you think mister's the false WIKI administrators if all said by this dishonest guys are right why the french court dismiss the Shaick ali 2 times and the Fabrice gang also 6 times for similar lies ! 83.206.63.250 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A Saved page for you

83.206.63.250 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IP address & IP location (76.109.17.236):

IP address info: IP address: 76.109.17.236 (copy) IP country: United States IP Address state: IP Address city: Palm City IP latitude: 27.118799 IP longitude: -80.366600 ISP: Comcast Cable Organization: Comcast Cable

The Guy changing all and making MDSi site without our permission are Harold Kirpatrick CEO of MDS America this adress are the private Home of the King of the liards chief of the rackett team; MDSAmerica are located nearly in Stuart. 83.206.63.250 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:TALK by 76.109.17.236

Editing the comments of another editor to change their meaning is strictly forbidden by WP:TALK. I reverted the edit made this morning by 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs · count), a Florida-based IP, who was altering the comments left here previously by User:Jeanclauduc, reversing the meaning of some of his statements. If you have something to say, add your OWN comments. EdJohnston 14:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am Jean-Claude Ducasse ( JeanClauduc before now I am probably Piracy by harold Kirpatick the ceo of MDS America based in Stuart Florida and in Palm city Florida I never altering any comments my comments are all altered by this company and by Fabrice the Product manager of MDS america now I sign only by My IP company server adress 83.206.63.250 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pease read what I said back, before new MDSAmerica alteration ? Testimonies are lies and Mich Alonz our MDSI France Telecom Hyperboost Hypercable client never said any in WIKI and the copy of this false testimony made by Fabrice Ducasse using Mich Alonz name are send to the french FT lawyer by Michel Alonzo to sur this French Guy in the French court .83.206.63.250 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I copy this page before reverted by KIRPATRICK and I send you a copy. 83.206.63.250 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello FayssalF. Do you think this IP is actually Jean-Claude, and is he saying that the comment right above this on your Talk page is not by him? In that case he must be saying that his logged-in account has been compromised. Is that cause for an indefinite block of User:Jeanclauduc as a precautionary measure? If so, I'm happy to leave these matters to you, as an administrator. If you do take this step, consider also semi-protecting both Talk:MDS America and Talk:MDS International since the whole issue is ensnared in identity and COI problems. Anyone who feels shut out by that decision can always send mail to you, or write to the talk page of one of the users working on this problem. EdJohnston 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. The IP hails from Bois-d'Arcy near Versailles. Officially, i am still waiting for User:Jeanclauduc to answer my questions. For this reason, i don't answer any anonymous user. I hope to get the answers ASAP before taking any action. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Navbox collapsed

Hey -- yeah, no template, I just did it by hand. I based it off of the deletion review closing templates, which I think are {{drt}} and {{drb}}, but now that I've seen them, {{hat}} and {{hab}} are really what I was looking for. Mangojuice^talk 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:John T. Reed

Hi, Ed. I have responded[8] with diffs to your concerns[9] about my "spam" edits at Talk:John T. Reed. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault! I used some colorful language to express my appreciation of Athaenara's version and I made no careful study of the sequence of events. Given your work elsewhere, it would be strange for anyone to think your edits to have a spam motivation. I was not happy to see the full list of all of J. T. Reed's books included, and I wasn't aware that you actually generated the list in response to a complaint about the article being inadequately referenced. Now that I look at the whole sequence of events, I'm less and less happy about some of the details of it (though not your part, or Athaenara's). EdJohnston 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, Ed. That frikkin list took me 1-2 hours to put together, including tracking down ISBN numbers. Personally, I think the article is better without it, however I don't think Athaenara's commentary that accompanied its deletion[10][11][12] was very nice or even fair, given the circumstances. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Athaenara subsequently left a nice note explaining the situation. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re: Refactoring

Your comments are appreciated. I responded to your comments, and made a general comment to add some context to the situation. If you have more time, I'd like to hear what you think. (User_talk:Ronz#Refactoring_.282.29) --Ronz 21:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

COI Clarification

Overflow from WP:COI/N about MMY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tearlach: "Is it just my perception, or are infringing editors getting wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they don't actively break major policies? We seem to be getting a lot of "I hear what you say but that doesn't apply to me because ... fill in excuse"." Considering oneself neutral and providing character witnesses are thought enough make COI a non-issue. Besides the criticism of the COI Noticeboard editors in claiming "an extreme misconception on the part of everyone here: WHY would someone being at the TM university for decades be construed as evidence of COI in regards to editing the [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi] article?", and claims Paul Mason "throughly dispises MMY", Spairig said: "I gotta wonder at your obsession here, given that the description of COI says that one must be PAID or expect to be compensated in some way for editing the Wiki page in question in order for there to be a financial COI. The Maharishi University of Management employees are all posting anonymously because, as I understand it, the general policy of the various TM organizations is to "stay out of the mud" of arguing about TM in public unless you are a lawyer or PR person working in your capacity as such. None of the TM-related editors are being paid to edit this page as far as I know. the close relationships COI might apply, but only if you can demonstrate that the editors are not keeping a NPOV in what they post. That also doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that some "experienced Wiki editors" don't appear to understand the issue and support your claims is trumped by what the WP:COI page actually says." I have Mason (both versions), easy to get. Mason "thoroughly despises MMY" seems both inaccurate and irrelevant. Mason states the TM organization fought publication but failed. Unjustified personal attacks on Mason from TMers are just one example on one subject of a COI undermining NPOV. One example of individual editors now feeling free to dismiss COI concerns based on personal interpretations of COI, with a sense of impunity and indignity. I see need for a global Wikipedian resolution. Comments?--Dseer 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC) One problem is that nearly everyone participating on the Talk page of MMY seems to have some present or former connection to meditation. So we have a page that's essentially in the hands of enthusiasts and anti-enthusiasts (i.e. disillusioned people). In a situation where 'plain vanilla editors', if there are such, don't seem to be involved, it doesn't seem like there's much we can do. The general WP practice is to leave each article in the hands of those working and responding on the particular talk page, unless there is gross abuse, which didn't seem to be in evidence. If you had asked for a very specific remedy, it might have been considered, but it seemed like there was no short answer to any question from any of the participants. Note that a serious page like WP:ANI expects short postings, with diffs, and very concentrated evidence, none of which was presented on the COI noticeboard. A complaint like 'Go investigate those guys, they are being unfair' is hard to get much traction on. A ban on editing by college employees, if it were applied to every college in the world, seems too severe. If you think Mason's criticism should be included, and you can't get any support for that, I suggest an RFC, because that demands short answers. If there is unreasonable bias, it will become evident. EdJohnston 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC) My comment about Mason was not along the lines of inclusion or not inclusion, but merely to point out that he has biases against the subject [Maharishi] he wrote about. Whether or not these biases crept into his bio on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, I couldn't say but it seems to me QUITE clear that anyone who allows themselves to be identified as "part of the team" on a blog called "TMFree" is not pro-TM, and that anyone who writes the following about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, has a definite bias, justified or no, about the topic: Q. In conclusion then, isn't it true to say that the Maharishi is nothing other than an opportunistic, self-promoting maverick who, although probably well-meaning, wilfully misleads his supporters and anyone else who has the time, the inclination and the money to listen to him? A. Some say the TM method is a good one, some say not. --Paul Mason -Sparaig 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Superdeterminism and Archimedes Plutonium

I just saw your note at the COI noticeboard (plus your note on my talk page). One "problem" seems to be that in general, warnings are rarely placed on his page, relative to the number of times he could be warned. Why are we dancing around this guy? I don't really have the time/energy to fight this one right now ... Keesiewonder ^talk 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What warning would you place? One of his changes to the Archimedes Plutonium article meets the definition of vandalism, but the others not. Should we have a 'COI' warning template, for user talk pages? But then would you give one such template for every edit? I'm seriously interested in a better scheme. EdJohnston 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• The series beginning with {{subst:uw-chat1}} may be appropriate, especially when he starts pasting newsgroup posts such as this.
  
• The series beginning with {{subst:uw-own1}} may be appropriate when he expresses how he wants the article on him to present such as here.
  
• The COI template {{subst:uw-coi}} has been placed once on his talk page; maybe this needs to be expanded to a series with the offender getting blocked for periods of time similar to what is now done for vandalism or 3RR once the full series of warnings has been placed. At the very least, {{subst:uw-coi}} could be placed each time he offends or he could be blocked from editing the articles in which he introduces COI.
  
• {{subst:uw-legal}} is appropriate after edits such as this.
  
• A new variation on this that applies if the subject of the article is not the original creator of the article may be helpful. (If I recall correctly, SD did not create the AP article but has a long history of trying to control it.) Of course, this guideline would then need to be placed on the user's talk page, not just posted in a guideline/policy article.

Keesiewonder ^talk 11:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed ideas! Re AP and his antics, you may also have noticed this thread at ANI. EdJohnston 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome! And thanks for pointing me to that other thread. I hadn't seen it yet ... I don't think there's much more I can do at this point ... Keesiewonder ^talk 14:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the issue was archived prematurely. Keesiewonder ^talk 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting a message on AN/I is like asking the fire department to respond, and I guess it has be worded very urgently for people to notice it. The first message just asked for administrators to 'keep an eye on the situation' and may have been too low-key. Actually, there might be a possibly compromise about his nickname, if that's the chief thing that's bothering him, since I'm not sure the article would be incomplete without it. EdJohnston 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Juice Plus, response

Ed, I think that the article is too controlled by individiuals with questionable agenda and therefore there is NO way that the article is as neutral as Wiki is intended. I can't get involved due to obvious COI, but if one editor does hundreds of edits, and none on any other article, doesn't that send up red flags as to them also having a COI? It is easy to declare that none exsists when you have a cloaked identity/anonymity; but doesn't it lead one to question it? What kind of a pastime is it to spend hours on an article if you have NO personal connection to it? With 100's of edits, itt's an obvious passion, obsession...

Yes, there is much more to the story; the truth. The article calls it a supplement in the first sentence, it isn't. It is a whole food product. The article calls JP+ a "MLM", it isn't, I own a franchise for my Juice Plus business, I do not have to buy inventory and deliver it to people like an Amway MLM, thus spending thousands of dollars buying products...It costs $50 to start your business. This company provides people with little means the ability to build a business and deliver whole food based nutrition to a population in great need of it.

It's really not as complicated or problematic as the article makes it sound. Thanks for your time and interest in hearing 'the other side'. Julia 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, recently editors Shell and Elonka did exhaustive nuetral rewrites of the Juice Plus article. Red agreed with everything at the time, since then, he has reverted it all back to his desired wording . You champion him and say he is a lone keeper of what is nuetral, he is most certainly not. I "hate" the abuse of wiki policy, and am deleting my pages, info, contacts etc from this site. I have not been banned, I am leaving because there is no reason to stay because of the fact that one person can distort fact and hold it as such on Wiki, It goes compeletly and totally against what wiki foundation intended when creating this site. NO college, high school or research entitity that I am aware of allows wiki as a source, why? because it is not an encyclopedia, it has sadly become a opinionated fraternity of nonsense.I do not think you are helping the situation by considering a rouge editor to be an asset. I never have thought the article should be a "pro" juice plus article or sales page for it, but what it is now is simply an extention of the MLMScam and Stephen Barrett idiotology. AND if Red wants me to stop commenting on the editing page, every mention of my name should be deleted, otherwise I will feel the need to defend myself and will do so. He is using my name to try to discredit me when even you have stated I have NOT edited the page and rightly so, so that I am not violating a known COI. Why do you not question a possible COI of someone who spends practically a full time job doing 1000's of edits on one subject? How is that in Wiki's best interest if we are to be nuetral site, the pattern has always been anyone posting anything even remotely favorable to JP gets attacked, thrown out and exhausted by Red. That isn't nuetrality it is domination.JuliaHavey 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Chess openings

Hi, I'm replying here because I think that you may be misapprised about what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that there are no articles on the subject of chess opening at all, I think that is a valid article if in need of some improvement. There are even some articles on individual openings I can accept as valid for inclusion. The problem, if you review the category is that there are almost 200 pages in it, some of which are nothing but minor variations. That, I think is a bit much. I see you did suggest that some be deleted, and that's fair, that kind of granularity is acceptable in an AFD, you don't have to say keep all or nothing. However, you may wish to know there is a problem with saying its harmless. The subject is complex enough that I don't feel I can cover it fully myself, but in short, simply being harmless is not a reason to keep anything. FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to let you know, that I've been worried that I'd have to be too aggressive from the start when I first brought up the issue back in November of 2006. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 1#So many chess openings. Yeah, I know I'm a person who hates to let something remain unresponded to, even when silence might be more effective. However, I hope I haven't been offensively aggressive, and if you note anything I've said being uncivil, let me know. Or if you have any advice on how to actually get this work done. FrozenPurpleCube 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message Re: Jimmy Wales's Charlie Rose Interview

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your note. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, and I guess I still have to learn the proper protocols..

It's not too clear to me what does/doesn't add value as an external link. Though the intermediary or provider point you make is a valid one..

However I have also interviewed individuals for a blog-based project, and linked to their Wikipedia bio's/articles, but have had these links deleted today as well.

This doesn't make sense to me. Original content with a direct relationship to an article's subject should be a legitimate external link.

What are your thoughts on linking to these interviews?

Thanks again,

Pdiperna 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI and WP:EL. I'm afraid these policies are so clear that I'm wondering if there's a reading comprehension problem. You should not add a link to your own site to an article, period. Discuss on the Talk page first. Check out WP:WPSPAM if there is any doubt left in your mind. Regarding your mention of original work, see WP:OR. EdJohnston 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, your points are well taken. I'm new and didn't understand the protocol. My mistake. There's no need for "I'm wondering if there's a reading comprehension problem". In the future I will file requests for comments to be sure what I would like to add is justifiable and cleared by WP editors. Good luck with your duties here. Pdiperna 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

my blocks

did you ever consider took like what i received the blocks for. what happenend around all this? Did you? Unfortunatly as opposed to the admins I am not allowed to collect evidence, to make overviews of what happened, how they again and again deleted pages against WP:CSD. And now also my user page was deleted with oversight rights, so it is not even visible that it was there. How come the others fear the truth so much? They fear diffs! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Some struggles are uphill, so be it. Why I do it? Because the admin right abuses give a bad atmosphere in WP. I want to raise awairness. Some 20 or 100 admins make their own party here. That's bad. Someone has to stand up and to say the truth. Let them ban me if they whish to do so. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW you said "because the administrators are basically trying to enforce the Wikipedia consensus" - they try to enforce their consensus! They act against WP written policies. 4 people wanted my user page deleted, one was against. Then MgM did it speedily. And it does _not_ show in the deletion logs! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Journals project

Hi, I am wondering if you have time to help get a WikiProject dedicated to Journals underway. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Journals. John Vandenberg 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks for considering me for this project. I should probably not join as a formal member, because the amount of work I'd be able to do may not be sufficient. Here's just a couple of ideas.

• I see that you have Journal of the Royal Statistical Society as one of your proposed collaborations. If I get any time I might try to help with that a little, since I have some knowledge of statistics.
• Something that (for me) would be useful is to create articles on some historic journals that have been newly digitized, and are available free online. I am occasionally astounded to come across some 19th century French mathematical journals that you can get at gallica.bnf.fr. This availability was (to me) almost a complete surprise, since it's not well summarized anywhere, and access through their web site is rather hit-or-miss. And if you wanted to consult the real paper journal you'd usually find it to be scarce.
• I also thought that your project on the Comptes Rendus was interesting since the publication is so irregular and has gone through so many phases. I think I came across one OPAC that really sorted it out very well, but libraries vary on how well they document this stuff. EdJohnston 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

References in Affine Arithmetic page

Hi! A while ago you asked how I created the references in the affine arithmetic page. Basically I extracted some entries from my bibliography files and edited them with various Unix tools. (I probably used the script bibtex-to-html in that directory at some point). The funny HTML comments you mention are the article tags in my own files. (I should have deleted them --- sorry!)

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC on User:Badmonkey

I have opened an RFC on Badmonkey, since you have stepped in to help resolve the dispute perhaps you can certify it here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey (page instructions directed me to leave this comment) Russeasby 23:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reguarding your suggesiton that I as well should certifiy it, I used other open RFCs as a guideline, and it seems that the norm is for the person who opens the RFC does not specificly certify it, I guess it is taken as a given? Ones listed as "Approved" ussually do not seem to have the origonal RFC poster also posting in the section on certify it, yet those with only 1 listen as certify still get moved to the approved section. I dunno, am I reading this wrong? The instructions inside the RFC template are rather detailed and specific, I think I have done it correctly. Russeasby 00:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think your right, my sig should certainly appear on the page, but there is no other place appropriate other then the certify section, thanks. Russeasby 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of search engines

Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page back in, uh, January. I wound up taking an entirely unplanned break from the project right around then, but I'm getting myself back up to speed again. I recently returned to the List of search engines to do a bit of cleanup, and when I removed the redirects you mentioned, they were promptly re-added once again without comment. I took your advice and started a discussion on the list's talk page. Your input would be appreciated. - EurekaLott 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be better if you could sign your comment there as 'Alain POIRAUD',

Hi Ed.. and thanks to your short note.. I never hide the fact that my real name is Alain Poiraud, and that I'm the designer of two sucessful anchors.. the problem is that I don't know what I should do to change the fact that when I type the four ~~ it is the word "Hylas" who appears (Hylas was the compagnon of Hercules during his sailing in the Med..)

Well.. IT WORKS.. Thanks to both EdJohnston and Russeasby.. I have been able to change my signature.. In a few years, I will become an expert on WP..:0)

Killian memos dispute

Overflow from COI noticeboard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm going through the tedious procedure to ask for arbitration in the Killian documents dispute, and I just noticed a commment by you that was archive from the COI dispute board. I have no idea what to think of Wikipedia after all this: I get attacked by right wing editors with no consequence to them save for a warning to the most minor offender, "Andyvphil," and even a "Loss of Privacy" email threat is deliberately ignored; all my questions for people to explain their comments and behavior get ignored; and others, like yourself, out of nowhere to make some sort random, disconnected comment, usually in the form of a smear or insult aimed at me. At this point, I have zero patience with any further strangeness. I'm just going to quote you your comment, and I would appreciate if you could explain exactly how you came to your "conclusion" since it's pretty much factually wrong, and how is it you ended responding to a question I had put to "Athaenara" about who put the block on me. Unfortunately, I can't really give you much time to respond because I really want to get that Arbitration request in today. Your block was by Durova. Anyone who looks over your User talk will not be surprised that editors above have been mentioning personal attacks. Callmebc apparently operates a web site that carries extensive discussion of the Killian documents. Little Green Footballs operates a web site that has discussed the Killian documents, and Callmebc has associated htom with that site. This suggests that the two editors are in roughly the same position. I somehow doubt that Callmebc is planning to recuse himself from any discussion of the Killian documents, which suggests to me that this COI report ought to be closed. EdJohnston 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC) -BC aka Callmebc 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Comment A person who glances very quickly at your User talk will see the first heading below the Welcome message, Getting me banned from Wiki editing. It does not require deep thought to decide that, for whatever reason, you are an editor who plunges quickly into stressful situations. You may have a glorious cause to defend, for all I know, and perhaps that justifies the stress from your point of view. Ummm, "CWC" created that, not I. He had maliciously sniped at me on the Killian discussion page, and then sent me a "Loss of Privacy" threat via email (which is reprinted further down on my Talk Page), so I had filed a complaint against him, including recommending that he get banned from Wiki editing. It doesn't require deep thought to see that you didn't quite follow what had happened. CWC created that section on my talk page to tell me that my complaint got lost because I didn't follow some procedure. You asked how I came to respond to a question that you seemed to be posing to Athaenara. The block log is visible to all, so it was easy for me to look at it and tell who had blocked you. Several editors routinely go through the COI noticeboard and see if they can answer questions or give suggestions, and that's what I did. That doesn't explain why you felt compelled to answer a question posed to "Athaenara" -- she doesn't turn up anywhere in the Killian mess except for that strange comment about the 72 hr block, as though she had something to do with it. That's why I was asking. If you are factually contesting my comment at the COI noticeboard, does that mean you are saying: You do not maintain a web site that comments on the Killian documents? No. I don't do "comments" -- it's primarily a very, very heavily researched reference site. There is absolutely nothing there to dispute, and the evidence, as is, makes its own comments. Again, if you had done a lick of reading, you would have noticed that. As it now stands, the best and latest hard evidence makes the forgery scenario impossible. It's not arguable at this point. You can try, but you may perhaps read down the beginning of my web site before even thinking of making a counter argument. This has all been "field tested" already and it's not exactly that big of a secret now. You and User:OtterSmith have very different positions with regard to possible conflict of interest? htom, aka OtterSmith, is an active member of Little Green Footballs, which has a very, very strong investment in the forgery charges -- it's really their biggest claim to fame -- so they have an very active interest in blocking any and all evidence that disputes, nevermind shuts down the forgery claim. Charles Johnson apparently committed fraud in some manner when he used that animated GIF of the CYA memo overlay to say all the memos were forged -- his little "experiment" fails with the other three memos, most especially the ones the the letterheads. He evidently knew this all along. Also I have another question. Because of (what seems to be) your high profile on the web, it is rather easy to figure out your real world identity. Are you still eager to protect your anonymity on Wikipedia? I can speak more carefully if that is your preference. EdJohnston 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I only have a "high profile" of sorts because I'm doing other people's jobs. I hate politics, I normally have little use for typical Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservative, I was never a fan of Dan Rather and never watched his version of 60 Minutes, and I could care less about a division of Viacom, aka CBS. But the whole memos thing was such an insanely stupid thing -- there were plenty of discrepancies and misinformation in the claims used the forgery charges, but the mainstream media ignored all this, and simply let the right right mediasphere stomp all over facts, logic and fairness. I tried really hard to get some news organizations to do the most elementary follow-up on certain things I had pointed out, but....whatever response I got basically went along the lines of "Interesting -- let us know when you have more info." WTF -- I'm not a reporter, it was a pretty big story at the time, a couple of interns could have dug more than enough info. I'm involved in enough things as is, and I really hated the idea of getting too deeply involved in a overly high profile public situation like the memos, but it was obvious nobody else was going to make the effort, and there was a certain civic responsibility that compelled me to make the effort, no matter. The main villain in the situation really is the mainstream corporate media -- for all "coverage" they do, it's getting harder and harder for people in this country to know what's really going on. You really shouldn't have to be a whiz-bang researcher in order to be well-informed in this day and age. The Killian memos forgery myth is really more of a cautionary tale about how really ill-served the US population is these days by its much ballyhooed Free Press -- on one side you have an effete, lazy, timid, increasingly tabloid-driven mainstream media in decline, and on the other, a collection of mob-driven, quick to anger rumor mills populated by people who think all "facts" are political. I could have hidden my identity more, but I figured that it would have looked too suspicious. I show all my homework when I debate and make my points, and I have taken my fights into "enemy" territory, so I think that has helped to give me street creds and a certain amount of grudging respect that I probably would not have gotten normally. But just because my ID can be easily enough sleuthed out doesn't exactly give people carte blanche to do so, and I will not take kindly to that happening.... -BC aka Callmebc 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I don't apologize for reacting to your question about blocking on the COI noticeboard; that's what I do. Athaenara and I are two of the volunteers who help to investigate COI complaints, and Durova is one of the administrators who is willing to take action when it is needed. No Wikipedia editor needs to wait for your permission before making a posting at WP:COIN; it is a group effort. So far as I can tell, you don't have a bona fide COI complaint, and that issue (not opened by you) has already been closed and archived. You and OtterSmith both work on very public web sites that have something to say about the Killian Documents. OtterSmith is not (a) Dan Rather, (b) Jerry Killian, or (c) George W. Bush. The latter three people might have a conflict of interest if they were discussing the Killian documents, but none of those people is participating here. If you feel aggrieved, take it up with Arbcom. EdJohnston 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Like everything else here in this wild wiki wacky land, your "logic" is a bit lacking in, how shall I put it, logic. But I'm glad someone finally answered my many questions about who Athaenara is and why she posted like she did. That's another odd I thing I've noticed about you wiki people -- you guys are seemingly loathed to answer even simple questions, vastly preferring no answer or a nonsponsive statement. Don't worry, though, you're already included in my Arbitration list. Who would have thought I would run into far more illogical, difficult people in Wikipedia than in a typical right wing blog. Whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc 22:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute

Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about Wikipedia

I, Vincent Bethell, have made a complaint about the repressive nature of Wikipedia due to Wikipedians refusing to let me edit my own entry as I see fit. I feel it is important that Wikipedia should be truthful and should NOT post lies regarding the entries of living people. It would be ironic and a good news story if I was actually banned for editing my own entry as I see fit. (Personal attack removed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vincent bethell (talk • contribs) 11:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Is it just me, or is it ironic that someone who does things like this and this is trying to be taken seriously? xC | ☎ 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that a user conduct RFC might be just around the corner, due to his editing of Vincent Bethell and his talk page comments. Have you seen the COI posting? Some of his changes might be due to inexperience, but he doesn't seem to have a sincere desire to improve the encyclopedia. We should be cautious about forbidding people to remove what they consider to be errors from their biographical articles. A concept we might consider for the future is 'misbehavior by the subject of the biography' as an added criterion to use in AfD debates. EdJohnston 13:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that would definitely make for an interesting read on AfD. Best of luck with the article, I just looked through it, and it'll need a legion of angels to save it. Happy editing!xC | ☎ 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)