User talk:CliffC/Archive 5

Removal of Fortune Cookie Content

You tagged the content I added as promotional, which it is not. I believe the information provided belongs in the article about fortune cookies. Please indicate why you believed the additional information added constitutes promotional (and therefore unacceptable) material. Kaschro (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people come to Wikipedia to promote a person or product rather than to help improve the encyclopedia. When I see a product or company name make a sudden appearance in an article, as one does in this new section you added to Fortune cookie, I look at the editor's edit history for any pattern that might suggest an agenda other than improving the encyclopedia. When I looked at your edit history, I saw that over the 12 days you've been here you've contributed little beyond creating and editing an ad-like article about the company Fancy Fortune Cookies and an article about Mike L. Fry, the company's owner, that seems more public-relations piece than balanced biography.

Thus far, your account appears to be a single-purpose account, in conflict with Wikipedia's goals. As to your question about the edit to Fortune cookie, that looked to me like what I think of as "bedding" – unnecessary now and a great place to drop in a mention of those Fancy Fortune Cookies later. --CliffC (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a new account I have created to use in the future, I have created and edited other articles on my previous account, as I will be doing with this one as time goes on, though I am obviously still in the learning process here. Regardless, the fact remains that there are indeed other kinds of fortune cookies available to the public. There was no mention was made of the company article I created in the addition to the fortune cookie article. In fact I only mentioned the company to pioneer them.

In addition you have tagged the Fancy Fortune Cookies article as being written like an advertisement, when I have taken care to use a neutral viewpoint and have included numerous references. I would refer you to the articles on other companies such as Jones Soda or Jelly Belly - I do not see anything in the Fancy Fortune Cookies article that is out of line with other accepted articles on notable companies. With this in mind I feel that the tag you placed was unwarranted. Kaschro (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What you call pioneering others call promotion, and it's not what Wikipedia is for.

Thank you, I understand what Wikipedia is for. If your objection was based on a lack of reference I could see that (I'm still searching for a reliable reference regarding Chin Chin Restaurant). In any case, if the objection is that it is promotion for the restaurant I feel it would be more appropriate to remove that reference, and not the entire section, which is merely factual information about the existence of non-traditional fortune cookies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.44.245 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to discuss Fancy Fortune Cookies on its own talk page so that other editors can see the discussion and comment. If you'll copy your last paragraph to that page I'll respond there. --CliffC (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My objection to the addition of this to Fortune cookie was based only partly on the lack of notability of the restaurant mentioned (and because Wikipedia doesn't do shout-outs). References, reliable or not, have nothing to do with it. I'll try to make myself more clear than I was above: My objection to the section as a whole is based on the addition of an unnecessary bit of adspeak and on the apparent conflict of interest of the editor adding it. The Wikipedia COI policy encourages editors with a COI not to edit related articles, but to instead use the discussion pages to make suggestions. That's what I'd suggest you do here, and we'll get this out in the fresh air. --CliffC (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here, other than to agree with CliffC (and other editors who have reverted these additions to the Fortune Cookie article) that the edits were promotional in nature. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard Hat Riots

I think that's a good idea. I did the same thing for John Lindsay but my summary had more of a "Lindsay" focus. More about the protesters calling the mayor a "commie rat", less about "brennan" :). --Work permit (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

IndustryProj

Hi CliffC. Because of the nature of what we do and the fact that the information posted up is researched and written from a neutral viewpoint, I've been given instructions that as part of this project to help improve the quality, timeliness and accuracy of industry and economic statistics on Wikipedia, we are meant to be uploading as much relevant encyclopedic style economic and industry related information as possible, as long the entries are written from a neutral point of view, the links guide Wikipedia readers directly to freely available data, don't mention the IBISWorld name in the wiki entry, refrain from forecasting statistics, stick to Wikipedia's style guide and incorporate reputable references other then IBISWorld in the entry.

You can see from the entries I am doing that there are no forecasts and the information is based on economic and industry history and trends. I am making sure to always cite reputable sources other then IBISWorld (such as what I have been doing with the US Census Bureau, Wall Street Journal, as well as other research providers) in the entries as well. These trends do not promote any product in particular but add to the depth of content. We have access to a large library of encyclopedic style economic history that fits in with Wikimedia principles and can greatly add to Wikipedia's content. The data in the entries I am adding can be freely viewed by Wikipedia readers if they choose to follow the links either to IBISWorld data, the links to other recognized government, economic and industry sources or links the other reputable research providers I cite. That being said, I do get your point and I'll also be adding more entries that don't mention IBISWorld or link to the IBISWorld website

IndustryProj (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've already seen that canned defense of your edits here where you responded to another editor's warnings about spamming and conflict of interest. Yesterday I reverted your most recent edits and reported your site, and the edits by both your accounts, here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. In my report I said:

Site sells $650 industry reports. Their approach to each article seems to be to drop in a paragraph about the industry (not always optimally placed, may repeat what's already said in the article) cited to a reliable source such as the WSJ, then add a paragraph of statistics cited to IBISworld, linking to a page of general information about the industry and a "Purchase Options" button. In the case of Department store, the button leads to offers of a $650 one-time report or a $995 one-year subscription to all reports for the industry. User:IBISWorldWikiProject switched ids after receiving COI and spam warnings from other editors.

Spam is spam, even if you tack it on following a few tangential and/or repetitive dropped-in facts culled from some reliable source while painting the whole lump as "helping to improve Wikipedia". These edits should be removed. --CliffC (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

After the posting about 'conflict' of interest on my discussion page I understand that I shouldn't keep linking to IBISWorld everytime I write an economic/industry entry so I will refrain from doing this anymore unless it is crucial to the entry.

This is the first time I received any form of warning that this was considered a conflict of interest so I will change how I write further posts and change old ones as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndustryProj (talk • contribs) 12:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You can see the I am now deleting these entries and links. It's a shame because the info is based on legitimate statistics IndustryProj (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read your advice about keeping the posts relevant (the point about stock-brokers not being an actual industry but a profession) so I'll be very precise/careful and not add anything that isn't absolutely related to the wiki page IndustryProj (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rasputin's penis

Since you mentioned in the talk thread that Rasputin's penis is a notable subject and you have taken the time to keep that article in good shape, I figured you should know that some troll is trying to have that page deleted. 68.45.109.215 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, thanks. I don't know exactly what's going on with User:69.253.207.9, this morning he added this oddity (since removed) to my talk page. Previously, User:70.11.173.226 twice added this to my user (not talk) page, maybe it's the same person. Time will tell. I think it has to do with school being out for summer; middle-school kids spend a lot of time thinking about penises (although usually their own) when they have nothing to do. --CliffC (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Erin Burnett Page

The topic I added to is relevant, factual, well sourced, and an important search topic for Erin. While not a shining moment for her, no wiki page should be lacking factual, important info. Everyone has had a bad press day, and this was one of hers. To dispute this is non-factual or in anyway is too protective or lacking in objectivity in my opinion. This is wikipedia, not her fan page. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyecantspel (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip page. I cleaned out one chunk of statements written to put her in a bad light (maybe they were factual, it doesn't matter) and reported the article as grossly imbalanced here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Another editor finished the cleanup, commenting "Neutral does not mean 50% criticism". You can read his edit summaries in the article history. I suggest a review of WP biographies of living persons policy before you make more edits. --CliffC (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

the additions were not gossip in anyway. like i said in my reasons, a page on her without this info is like a page of pres gw bush without iraq. because a person is alive doesnt mean facts cant be presented. frankly, erin doesnt meet the standards to even have a wiki page without them. she is one of 100's if not 1000's of cover business news on television. i didnt come to her page to discredit her, but once i saw it i only added context and references to a story that was already there. her page now looks like her own cnbc profile, with no actual news or context on why she is even famous in her field. i don't disagree that standards should be made and kept, but this is going too far when you wipe away anything that cast someone in a bad light. hitler's page must say something about war crimes, right? i understand she has fans, im one of them, but to be reasonable the section should be put back in her page, at least the way it was until i edited it on the 5th (the way the section ahd appeared for sometime)Im not going to get into a report war but some level of reason needs to be used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyecantspel (talk • contribs) 06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed again the material that was removed in light of the policies linked to above and I don't see anything that belongs in the article as it stands today; some of it would never belong. Wikipedia policy is strict for writing about living persons. Maybe in a much longer article the Chinese imports controversy could be trimmed and added without putting the article out of balance. If you still disagree after reviewing the policies linked above, you might want to take it to the talk page or comment at the BLP report here at the notice page. --CliffC (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with having pages limited to what is found on their profiles on their network pages. People use Wikipedia to reseach and learn, otherwise they would just look at the press profile from, for example, CNBC. I did not realize wikipedia was "good news only". I have not noticed this in other pages and frankly dont understand it. A growing number of people find wikipedia to be unreliable and not useable, even to settle bets. I was pro wikipedia in these discusions, but after spending some time on here trying to make it better and upgrading info, I see where the info is under control and not accurate at all (not this article) or has major gaps in the coverage of a subject (this one). I had grown to really like wikipedia and found it useful if not educational. What I see now is a natzi like control of info as a few people may seem to be fit. I consider this matter closed and thank you for at least explaining why you deleted the additions. Keep in mind, I didnt add the section, i added some info to one of the subjects in the section. Removing the entire section was, i think, a poor decision. Eyecantspel (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Haunted Castle

Do you know of any specific policy that prohibits spoken word? As far as I can tell thats a primary source, and is acceptable.Drew Smith What I've done 09:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, purely oral accounts seem to be disallowed by WP:OR, and by WP:RS and WP:V as well. There's already a lot of discussion of these policies (from when Popartpete was adding unsourced writings) at Talk:Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure. As I understand WP:PRIMARY, "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", those first-person recollections would have to have been published. I googled for sources when he first posted them and was disappointed to not find anything; they would be a great addition. --CliffC (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RSI page

I appreciate your taking on the job of fixing the horrible RSI entry. I have RSI, and I find the current article offensive and inaccurate. Fixing the RSI entry is a difficult job because it requires a nuanced understanding of the existing theories. It's very easy for an article on RSI to end up implying like it says that RSI sufferers are either (i) hyper-sensitive (ii) frauds (iii) hypochondriacs (iv) psychologically inferior. For instance, the current page says, "A good way to understand this is that they have a strong "pain alarm"--pain tends to be accepted as a sign of danger and they have difficulty modulating this intuitive uneasiness with pain (e.g. turning down or turning off the "pain alarm")." This seems to imply that the pain endured by RSI sufferers results from their hyper-sensitivity. However, the referenced paper <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15687162?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum> says nothing of the sort. It does say that RSI sufferers report more severe pain at rest among other things, but another obvious explanation for this statistic is that RSI sufferers are actually *in* more pain at rest. i.e. hyper-sensitivy is not the *cause* but in some sense a *result* of the RSI (although calling it a result is also misguided).

Your explanation of Sarno's theories are much better than the currently existing one. For instance, you clarify, "...RSI is psychosomatic is nature. The pain experienced by a sufferer of RSI is very real." Unfortunately, the next 2 sentences, "However, it is not caused by structural problems. It is stress/emotion related," can, and sadly almost certainly will, be misunderstood, b/c it sounds like you are saying that Sarno says there is no physical phenomenon causing the pain. However, Sarno *does* believe that there is a physical phenomenon (restriction of oxygen) causing the pain. That phenomenon isn't caused by overuse but rather, by emotions/stress; however it's still both real and physical. Anyway, you clearly already understand everything I'm saying and my point is not to educate you (you don't need it) but to ask that you be very careful.

By the way, these two articles might be of interest to you:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2895831?dopt=Citation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2239160?dopt=Citation

Thanks 18.87.1.139 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish I was that smart or knew that much about Dr. Sarno, but a closer look at Talk:Repetitive strain injury will show that you're quoting from a long post by User:Vipulgoyal1 that I replied to immediately below it to warn him what he was up against. Feel free to remove this section from here and copy it to his talk page, or perhaps to the article talk page — it looks like Vipulgoyal1 might be a one-time editor. Best, CliffC (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry! 18.87.1.139 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations...

I am having a problem understanding how to work the citations. They are baffling to me. Is there an easy way to do it? Thanks 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Answered at Talk:Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure. --CliffC (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A breath of fresh air!

CliffC,

I wanted to give you a head's up on something I posted to the WikiProject Medicine discussion page--entitled Private practice "Before & After" shots. The abdominoplasty article (as well as the liposuction article) has been invaded by more of these before and after advertisements. I received a phone call yesterday from a plastic surgeon after he noticed that I had posted some legitimate (and descriptive) photos to the articles, claiming that I was removing/editing his work. I came to find out later that he had actually removed one of my best images without any valid reason. Please read my post on the WikiProject page to understand the full extent of the issue. I'm a relatively new contributor to the Wikimedia projects, but I've become quickly dissatisfied with the way some people think they can abuse this amazing project.

Anyways, seeing your edits brings a breath of fresh air to me! It is nice to see that there are people who legitimately care about the quality and legitimacy of the Wikipedia articles! Take care, and thanks. Paravis (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Behavior like this really, really irks me. In case you haven't seen it, there's a related talk page User talk:Bhalberg, leading to a noticeboard discussion here. If you have no objection, I'll add an information link leading to your WikiProject_Medicine#Private_practice post to that discussion, or you might want to do it yourself. Thanks for sharing the plastic surgeon story, it's a wiki-spammer classic. Best, CliffC (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: [1]. Flowanda | Talk 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. I commented on the spam page, here. The doctor has an interesting approach to "educating the community". --CliffC (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I, Otto Placik have many issues with these false and misleading statements issued by Paravis or Laz. I admit to contacting Dr. Michael Schwartz because he was listed as the source of the photos. I never contacted Paravis nor ever phoned him. Yet he insistes that I did. This would imply, by his own statements, that he and Dr. Michael Schwartz are one in the same and would consist of a sockpuppetry or even meatpuppetry conflict of interest. Paravis posts these images (well over 10) with a direct hyperlink to Dr. Schwartz' website with a very protective link to his "terms of use" web page as opposed to referring to the Wikipedia terms of use. Why? Dr. Schwartz should be listed as the source or author only. The images are the property of Dr. Schwartz, yet Paravis states above I removed one of "my images" his words. Are they one in the same? Who is being misleading here. I have offered my name and there is no conflict of interest nor is there any advertising nor is there any link. I am quite concerned with the way in which Paravis has twisted the words and beleive he is truly operating in bad faith. I have nothing to hide. He should unequivocally remove the links ASAP, if he truly wants to walk the walk. I approached his "associate" directly and attempted to deal with this editor to editor not in the backhanded fashion that he has chosen. When I spoke with Dr. Schwarts, he had no idea how to log onto Wikipedia and no idea of the postings or the attributions. Again, who is carrying out the sockpuppetry? Otto Placik (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Central Heating Insurance link to financenet.org

Dear CliffC You completely removed my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler_insurance#Types_Of_Boiler_cover even though they were valid that this type of cover is FSA regulated in the UK. It was not a comerical link I have found several references to the information including moneysupermarket, and I referenced the last one! If i simply need to enhance things without references due to "trust" issues as I am new to this then please tell me!! London2020London2020 (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if you read the edit summary from my removal of your addition to the Boiler insurance article. It says "rm somewhat off-the-subject material and commercial link" and that's the problem with your edit in a nutshell. Your addition is something of a non sequitur cited to a commercial link; this will set off most editor's spam alerts. Please take a look at TastyPoutine's Spammer Bingo (prominently mentioned at the top of this page), and I'll put a Welcome template with useful links on your user page. Please post here again if you still have questions.--CliffC (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category Deletion Discussion -- Italian Americans

Pls note that there is a category deletion discussion re Italian Americans afoot at [2]--Epeefleche (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Aged citation tags

Not saying I didn't remove the tags from Fight Club, because I know I did, just asking for clarification. i've been here for 8 hours and don't remember what i edited. (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify - on Fight Club, I deleted those two fact-tagged statements because they did seem questionable and no one had come up with a citation after several months. I also undid several other of your fact-tag removals where no citation was supplied.

When you're a busy editor, it is sometimes had to remember where you've been, but you can click on the 'my contributions' link at the top of the page to see. --CliffC (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

15 JULY 2009

Hi Cliff, as much as I appreciate what you are doing on Wikipedia, I feel that it would be more professional of you to contact users before removing valuable links. The information that I added to the otherwise 'one paragraph' no win no fee page is obviously highly informative and was sourced from the Legal Advice Helpline website. I work with the Citizens Advice Bureau and we refer to Legal Advice Helpline for free information and advice on personal injury claims. I will be readding this link for this reason and would appreciate it if you could please allow consumers visiting Wikipedia to benefit from this useful and free service. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemma kelly (talk • contribs) 10:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the semi-joking request at the top of this page to make a selection at TastyPoutine's Spammer Bingo before complaining about links being removed. Your links violate Wikipedia's external links policy and are promotional, also a policy violation. I'll be removing them again. Every group of lawyers in the world would love to have links to their site in Wikipedia, that's one of the reasons we don't allow them. That aside, when I see a site, "useful and free" or not, that says

100% Compensation Guaranteed!

"Legal Advice Helpline will provide you with access to expert solicitors and will ensure that you receive the best possible support and help when making a whiplash injury claim. All Legal Advice Helpline solicitors work on a no win no fee basis which means that your whiplash injury claim will cost you nothing with a guarantee that you will receive 100% of your compensation."

it's easy to recognize that this is a promotional site. When I see an article created named Childrens fractures whose closing paragraph is

"If you have suffered a personal injury of this nature due to no fault of your own, according to Legal Advice Helpline a claim for personal injury could be pursued. Legal Advice Helpline can provide expert advice on how to make a claim."

its creator's agenda is clear. Please spend some time reviewing the blue links in the warnings posted on your user page and also take a look at How not to be a spammer. Continued addition of such links may result in your account being blocked. --CliffC (talk)

Disgorgement Edits

Also a question on removing links. In the disgorgement article for example, its a brief article to which I added a link to a recent, academic treatment on the subject that is more in depth than most others available. Did you independelty read the linked article and decide it would be unhelpful to the reader who wanted to find out more about disgorgement? If so, can I ask why? It seems that linking such a directly on-point academic article does not violate any of the 1-18 of the "links to be avoided" section of the external links policy. Nor is it self-promotion as it is neither advertising nor related to any business. Thanks. You obviously know a lot more about these rules, am just curious which part of the rule posting a helpful link to an article actually violates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docewa02 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the abstract of the article you linked to in Disgorgement, and thought it a jolting leap from our 100-plus word article to The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, SEC Disgorgement of Profits, and the Evolving International Bribery Regime: Weighing Proportionality, Retribution, and Deterrence without any intermediate bridge material. I also noticed that many of your recent edits seemed to be promoting other articles by one David C. Weiss, an observation shared by at least one other editor who reverted a link dropped into Terrell Owens. I recommend that you review How not to be a spammer, which advises "2. Contribute cited text, not bare links." Of course such citations would have to be to a reliable source, something yet to be determined in the case of Weiss. That's the way to improve Wikipedia. --CliffC (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. Still getting used to the rules here. Just trying to add more depth to the pages about which I have some expertise. I'll do it through text an adding to the article in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.150.198 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dental tourism

Hi Cliffc. you have removed the link about dental/medical travel to turkey. I did not linked it in the article, because it would be a spam. But this link includes very important knowledge about this issue and it is a unique article from a search institute. Thus I did not make a link to a homepage. I just linked the article without any commercial thoughts. I also read the rules about spam. Unfortunately I could not see a problem, why this link should be removed. Could you please so kind to give an answer? Best regards--Davide120 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Davide, I repaired your link (the trailing slash made it not work, at least not in Firefox) and took a look at the linked report. To me it seems at least as valuable as many of the links already in Dental tourism (an article often a target of spammers). I retitled the repaired link and restored it to the article. As a new user, you may still find it helpful to follow some of the blue links in the Welcome template I put on your talk page. Regards, --CliffC (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

That makes absolutely no sense. So somebody who corrects a spelling error should automatically be reverted because they didn't leave an edit summary? I took out extra spaces. Which would be obvious since wikipedia revisions do not show that change. There is absolutely no point in reverting something like that. Gune (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[The above was in response to this talk-page post asking the user to leave edit summaries.]

With spelling fixes, not the issue here, the change is easily understood using Popups or looking at a diff. When you simply add or remove extra spaces from a line as you say you did here, the change can't be easily understood and other editors have to waste time trying to read your mind or figure out if your (rather pointless in this case) edit is some subtle form of vandalism. That's why changes without edit summaries are more likely to be reverted. Thanks for respecting everyone's time. --CliffC (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bobmack89x

Thanks for supporting me at Bobmack89's talk page. Now it seems that this user is also nuts about adding links to "[s]ee also" sections (see death threat for example: [3]). I feel obliged to issue another warning to the user, could you back me up again? Thanks! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 21:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. At first I thought he was just some middle school kid that would either grow out of his edit behavior or find interests outside Wikipedia. Now I'd say he's looking more like a vandal. He might need to be reported somewhere but I haven't figured out where yet. --CliffC (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Office of Fair Trading

Thanks for the edits on this article, they were spot on Cngoulimis (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I put the OFT on my mental list of failed bureaucracies after doing some research for Micro Bill Systems. --CliffC (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Conjoined Wealth Fund

Just to let you know that I nominated Conjoined Wealth Fund for deletion. I took some of your points from the article's talk page. Cheers! --Patrick (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I don't think anyone will fight it. My impression was that in view of all the problems still to be addressed they had accepted the inevitable and decided to let it be quietly deleted when the copyright notice timed out (I'm assuming the deletion is automatic). Best, CliffC (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Green House (nursing home)

Hello CliffC, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Green House (nursing home) has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(fixable, partly fixed already)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Louise Glover

She herself states she's married on her old bio page (check the Internet Archive link). Since no one is disputing this, I think this reference is enough. What do you think? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked the currently cited link http://www.louiseglover.com/aboutlouise.asp (as did Ukexpat, here) and didn't see anything about a marriage. Based on recent changes to the name of her 'husband', and WP:BIO, there is a dispute. --CliffC (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Archive link: [4]. "I've just got married to my new hubby Ben, who is an identical twin from London we got married in The Grand Canyon were we were taken to from our hotel in Las Vegas by helicopter and I loved every min of it." --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bobmack89x II: This Time... It's Personal :)

Hi, FYI in case he's no longer on your watchlist, this guy finally got to me and I filed a WP:AN/I report (my first ever) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by Bobmack89x. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cliff,

Sorry for my late reply. Yeah, that user is quite annoying! Right now, the link to admin board no longer works, could you tell me what the outcome was?

Kind regards, --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 09:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bas - his edit history was looked at and he was counseled by some admins, but no block. He does seem to have slowed down. Apparently the AN/I reports are archived after 24 hours, his is here. He also seems to have edited as User:74.105.219.17, User:74.105.218.48, and User:74.105.212.17 before he registered, they have the same edit pattern similar interests and edit patterns. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's just hope he got the message this time. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 09:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(Some followup - copied from Talk:Undercover#See also section):

The links you removed seem to be the work of banned vandal and childish overlinker User:Bobmack89x. Like most of his edits they are, as you point out so well, worthless. Perhaps worse, they waste the time of good editors. More about Bob's history at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Disruptive_editing_by_Bobmack89x and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bobmack89x/Archive. --CliffC (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. I thought this was familiar, and it turns out that an edit to the Child pornography article adding US federal agencies only barely related to the topic [5] that I reverted was by him as well - (see Talk:Child pornography#See alsos). I wasn't aware he was a serial offender though, so thanks for the heads up. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Bobmack89x (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - November 29 2009

Sock updates:

• Ecosciences (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - December 4 2009
• 173.63.223.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - December 8 2009
• Personally (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - December 4 2009
• Belomorkanal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - December 18 2009
• Scottrothstein (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - January 14 2010
• Ronjermany (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - January 22 2010
• Vory v zakone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - January 31 2010
• Plymouthpictures (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - February 4 2010
• "Primitive Revolutionaries of China (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - February 14 2010

Unconfirmed:

• 173.63.223.133 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - February 25 2009

Fatima UFO hypothesis

The Fatima UFO hypothesis has once again been redirected without any discussion based on a bad excuse. I haven't got the time to address it further now but I thought you would like to know. If it remains as is I will bring it up and intigate the discussion myself in a few days when I have more time. If you would like to do so sooner feel free. Thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A request for comment about the Fatima UFO Hypothesis has been made. Since you have edited this article you a welcome to comment at Talk:The Fatima UFO Hypothesis. Thank you Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Terry Evanswood

Only admins can block editors. Are you an admin? I click through your links. Adding false info to the article will be removed. Unless there are other sources, any extra info without evidence will be removed. All info that are not properly cited will be removed; that's Wikipedia's rules (not mine). Sweetfornow (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been around Wikipedia in one form or another long enough to know that any editor can post warnings to your talk page, then after enough accrue refer you to WP:AIV to be blocked; or in the case of disruptive editing file an incident report at WP:AN/I, as several have done, including this report today. Regarding your deletions from Terry Evanswood, several editors have explained why they are wrong in their edit summaries when reverting them, or on your talk page. --CliffC (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

rharun

Hi, I am very upset that you decline my contribution topics "credit card fraud". The refernces that I cited is from the blogs that was written from reliable sources from internet news.

[User:rharun|rharunw]] (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please review: 1) the advice at the top of this page for those coming here to complain about their links being removed; 2) the material at every blue link in the 'Welcome' template at the top of your own talk page. These will help you understand why blogs are not valid references, and the general distaste here for false citations. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your web site or someone else's. Repeating the warning posted on your talk page,

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with Credit card fraud, you will be blocked from editing. Blogs are not reliable sources; worse, the material you linked does not support the statement it claims to.

You may also find the material at Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer helpful to making genuine contributions in the future. --CliffC (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Montessori Mountain of Mischievous Mayhem

Thanks for your dilegence to keep the Randian support of Montessori a part of the article. I wonder if you would agree that if Rand's support is to be excluded (in order to stop the "war") then Kilpatricks critisism should also be removed. Afterall, it was a mear pamphlet and is almost 100 years old. --Buster7 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. I took a week off to think about what I should be working on in Wikipedia. I'm sick of wasting time with trolls like 216.231.141.9. It gives me some satisfaction to see that he's blocked for a while, but I know he'll be back and Montessori method is an article that ended up on my watchlist when I reverted some vandalism there, not because it's a subject that I care a great deal about. See below. Best, --CliffC (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cutting back

I took a week off to think about what I should be working on in Wikipedia. Over the last few weeks I have encountered a hundred-year storm of ill-mannered trolls, promoters, ax-grinders and adolescents. I now realize that I don't have time to fight, fix or report all these problems by myself, and problems that do get fixed don't stay that way for long.

I have cut down my watchlist, much of which came to be when I followed spammers or vandals to articles I have no actual interest in. I will continue to follow my pet projects. --CliffC (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Plumber's Crack, Builder's Bum

Hi Cliff,

I noticed you reverted some edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttock_cleavage. I saw your message thanks.

So two main points to consider:

1) "Builder's Crack" is the term used in New Zealand for Plumber's crack. If you asked on the street here what the term on exposed backside was on a trade person, they would say "builder's crack" not builder's bum or plumber's crack.

2) Whether or not you allow reference to the site http://builderscrack.co.nz is another story. Spammer Bingo points 6 is most relevant. Yes, it is a commercial site, but it's the most popular trade services networking site in New Zealand and found notoriety because of a recent news event. Over the past 6 months it featured on both main national TV stations twice. Recently it featured on TV3 (http://www.3news.co.nz/Kiwi-in-France-wants-builders-from-home-for-special-job/tabid/367/articleID/115044/cat/346/Default.aspx) and New Zealand’s leading news media site (http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/2742203/Kiwi-builders-keen-to-ply-trade-in-Paris) because of a story emerged in which two New Zealander's living in Paris, placed a job on the site to find New Zealand builders because they didn't want French builders. Hundreds of tradespeople put their hands up to travel to France (the other side of the world) to participate it in Pauline and Simon Paris job. Pauline and Simon are currently selecting from the list and getting quotes. There is some talk of a follow up show with one of the major TV channels here.

As the term builders crack is widely used in New Zealand, reference was made to http://builderscrack.co.nz. If the term was http://plumberscrack.co.nz then the site would be called that (please visit). The site has a simple cartoon which illustrates exactly what builders crack is. It also indicates that in New Zealand the term is acceptable and palatable to the general public (otherwise it would not be a commercial success).

I hope you will reconsider or give advice on how this should be presented. Wikipedia for newbies is a tricky!

Thanks and regards, Jeremy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwynharris (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the site mention seems like promotion to me. Wikipedia is not interested in novelty and is not a newspaper. The best suggestion I have is that you copy this section to the article talk page and if another editor thinks any of this (beyond mentioning the NZ term for the subject) is encyclopedic they'll add it to the article. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok - so why not leave reference to the term "builders crack" with no reference to the site. I mean this is the term used in NZ after all. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwynharris (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since your edits today to that article have been reverted four times already, trust me when I say it would be best to propose exactly what you want to add on the talk page and hope someone does so. You seem very keen on linking the news article that mentions that site address. --CliffC (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

I know you passed before, but I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not an interest of mine – if I've edited dermatology-related articles in the past, it was likely because I followed a spammer or vandal there to clean up. --CliffC (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Ecosciences

I see you have been watching User:Ecosciences. I have crated a Sock puppetry case on User:Ecosciences. If you want to get involved. Please, Go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ecosciences, Thanks, --Zink Dawg -- 18:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will stop by there; as you have seen I have the same suspicions. Thanks for starting a case. --CliffC (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your case was moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobmack89x and both accounts blocked. I had already composed my two cents worth, so I added it over there for the record. Thanks again. Best, CliffC (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. Yea, I was watching that user for a few days before I started that sock puppetry case. The user had a very similar interests and edit patterns. If you need me to investigate an user for sock puppetry just let me know on my talk page.--Zink Dawg -- 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, don't know if you're still interested in this guy, new sock report here. Best, CliffC (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away from my computer for a few days. It looks like the user has been blocked and tagged. keep up the good work. I will keep my eye on this and if I find something suspicious. I will let you know.--Zink Dawg -- 19:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

copyright infringement

Hi, I understand that a recent entry on the Aberdeen Asset Management article has been cited for copyright infringement by yourself. Can you please advise how this entry can be removed to enable the Aberdeen Asset Management article live again. I also note that you have concerns over the type of text being issue and being a little too promotional. Thanks -- 20.56 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AberdeenManagement (talk • contribs)

The copyright notice on Aberdeen Asset Management gives the steps to permitting public use of your company's copyrighted text. Keep in mind the wording on the notice

"Note: Articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources; copyright issues aside, your text may not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia."

As another editor has advised on your talk page, you should change your account name. A quick look at the article history file will show similar issues with the (now blocked) account User:Groupmarketing – perhaps there's a communication problem at your company. A review of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies should also prove helpful. --CliffC (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is more information at Talk:Aberdeen Asset Management posted at the time of yet another copyright problem in July 2009. --CliffC (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

List of industrial disasters

I have reverted back your edits,As its world largest industrial Disaster and its worth mentioning on the Description. Alokprasad (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Maple

I declined your speedy because it alleges notability. However, it is unclear whether subject meets WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks - we'll see what happens. --CliffC (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate External Link

CliffC, I apologize for adding an external link to your Wikipedia article on Larry Davis (criminal). Your in-depth, well documented article has been most helpful to me and I did not mean to deface it. Nor am I interested in advertising or promotion. Rather, I honestly felt my link contributed to the richness of the Wikipedia experience. Please do not permanently consign me to the oblivion of being a CliffC-certified spammer. Alan Kurtz (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Alan Kurtz

Thanks for the kind words. I think you missed the semi-joking request at the top of this page to make a selection at TastyPoutine's Spammer Bingo before complaining about links being removed. I'm not concerned about the article being "defaced"; my concerns are the same as those voiced by King Öomie on your talk page. I agree with his suggestion to ask on article talk pages whether the other editors there think the reviews you've written are acceptable links. --CliffC (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

hi

Hi. Yes, sorry actually now I realized I didn't put sources. I have just added two book citations to the paragraph were the new text is. Thank you --Farkasven (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

May this season bring you joy and cheer!! ----Zink Dawg -- 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Dawg, and a merry Christmas to you too. CliffC (talk)

Talkback

Hello, CliffC. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 04:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen^discuss 04:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)