User talk:Urbanrenewal: Difference between revisions
| Line 453: | Line 453: | ||
UR, you state as evidence for my having a conflict of interest that "instead of coming from one account - these edits were spread across multiple accounts that were designed to look like they were acting independently". This hardly seems fair to me, insofar as applying this argument as evidence for your claim of my alleged conflict of interest, would mean every Wikipedia entry previously encountering legitimate conflict of interests could not ever have any more contributions made to its page. |
UR, you state as evidence for my having a conflict of interest that "instead of coming from one account - these edits were spread across multiple accounts that were designed to look like they were acting independently". This hardly seems fair to me, insofar as applying this argument as evidence for your claim of my alleged conflict of interest, would mean every Wikipedia entry previously encountering legitimate conflict of interests could not ever have any more contributions made to its page. This is an instance of a new editor minus a conflict of interest has edited the page to improve it overall by reducing bias, improving tone and shortening length. |
||
Revision as of 13:13, 9 July 2011
 | ϋrbanяenewaℓ is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when I have a little more time to devote. I am hopeful more users will pick up on the topics I have been working on while I am gone. I am sure I will be back full force at some point and in the meantime I will be watching and reserve the right to stop by from time to time if necessary. Effective as of October 1, 2010 |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Welcome
Welcome to Urbanrenewal...if I don't get back to you right away it is not intentional...
J Costas Article-DUDE QUIT USIN INCORRECT INFORMATION FROM THE SHAREHOLDER REPORT>>THAT REPORT CLEARLY STATES IF YOU TOOK THE TIME TO READ IT THAT ONLY SUBPRIME WRITE DOWNS ARE ADDRESSED
I disagree with your reasoning. All my edit did was highlight that DRCM employees dispute the figure. Zaki's book outlines this as does your summary of what is out there. As a former DRCM employee I can state with 100% confidence that we dispute that figure. Also if you read the shareholder report it only outlines sub prime losses and does not include profitable strategies such as CRE which made over 200 mil in the first half of 2007!
Former DRCM Trader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.77.60 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for Unblocking
Thanks for removing the block. I would like to get your advice on how I should have handled the situation differently. As you can imagine it was a fairly frustrating interaction and I was not getting a lot of help when I reached out on the noticeboards. Then to get blocked after I flagged the issue on the incidents noticeboard was obviously not what I had expected. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Sandstein and Phil were right - it was a bit harsh, but an EW is an EW. The real answer is to pursue WP:DR. The unofficial and more-or-less frowned upon answer is to ping an admin and ask for assistance, but many folks do that because it is often effective.
- You're a solid contributor. Edit warring is the one thing that frequently trips up even our best. I'm sure if you look into my history before I became an admin, you could find a few that I was involved in myself. If you find yourself doing the same thing more than twice, you really need to stop and figure out another plan of action.
- Let me know if I can be of assistance. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's a first for me. I guess my other question is tomorrow if the other editor goes back and removes the image what is the right way to proceed at that point? |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bring it to the attention of one of the admins that commented on your block, me or go back to ANI stating that the edit war has continued. If you bring it to ANI, I would remove the
{{resolved}}tag from the existing thread and move the thread down to the bottom adding your comment. Do not revert the edit to the article. I'm moving this entire thread here from my talk page as it would probably be more useful to anyone else looking at the problem if the EW continues. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)- I'm the other editor who was blocked. I was blocked for repeatedly removing this photo, which has not been established is in the public domain. My question: Should the photo remain on the page? The other editor describes me as a new editor. (July 2008. Does that make me new? Or necessarily in the wrong?) He says I was uncivil, but the thread of edits on these pages shows nothing uncivil. Persistent, yes. But my edits were made in good faith, and I accepted my block gracefully and without protest. But I'm not clear on this: What to do now about that photo? Why do we allow it to remain if, as editor PhilKnight says, "I haven't been able to establish when it was published." You may see why a (newer) editor would be confused why all this is being discussed in the context of "disruptive image removal" instead of "disruptive image posting"? I removed the photo because its copyright status is not clear; the experienced editor reposted it, saying it was probably OK. I removed it and asked for evidence; he removed it and said it was clearly OK. Yes, we both were guilty of edit warring. But what I don't understand is, while the photo's legal status is in dispute, why is it allowed to remain? Should we not err on the side of following the copyright law? The user Urbanrenewal does not have any evidence of a publication date for this photo -- he is guessing that it "must have been" published at a certain time, because it was taken then. When it was taken is not the test, right? Now, down to brass tacks: Is the proper course for me to take to mark this photo for deletion from Wikipedia? If so, how? I see the note above referring to WP:CSD#G12, but at that page I don't understand what exactly one should do. I'm afraid to remove the photo, because that would be edit warring. (Meanwhile, the editor who disagrees is free to re-post the photo?) Thank you for your suggestions.BlackberryHacks (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bring it to the attention of one of the admins that commented on your block, me or go back to ANI stating that the edit war has continued. If you bring it to ANI, I would remove the
- Thanks, it's a first for me. I guess my other question is tomorrow if the other editor goes back and removes the image what is the right way to proceed at that point? |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I have listed the photo for deletion, though I'm unclear how to do the template properly.
File:Huguette-Clark.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Huguette-Clark.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BlackberryHacks (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |
Financial Information
Hi. Thanks for your comment and for pointing out my typo.
My apologies if the citation was unclear, I was citing the SEC form 10-K, which I accessed via Wikinvest. The site provides easy access to navigable government financial filings with permanent web addresses. I find this makes searching for government filings both easier and less-error prone.
Regardless, thanks for pointing out my mistake; I've gone ahead and fixed the typo.
Financial Zorro (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
nice work Decora (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Trimaran Capital Partners
The article Trimaran Capital Partners you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Trimaran Capital Partners for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Aaron north (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |
Orphaned non-free image File:Houghton Mifflin logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Houghton Mifflin logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
|
Wikibreak
| ϋrbanяenewaℓ is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when I have a little more time to devote. I am hopeful more users will pick up on the topics I have been working on while I am gone. I am sure I will be back full force at some point and in the meantime I will be watching and reserve the right to stop by from time to time if necessary. Effective as of October 1, 2010 |
Orphaned non-free image File:American motors.png
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
|
Orphaned non-free image File:Stony Brook University logo 2010.png
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking for Wikipedia Ambassadors
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Boston. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at schools in Boston and Cambridge, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.
Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).
If you live near Boston and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.
If you're an experienced and active Wikipedian, you might be interested alternatively in becoming an Online Ambassador. The role of Online Ambassadors is to serve as mentors for students; it doesn't require any in-person outreach. Take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:AREA Property Partners logo.png
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:BBY Group Company Logo.png
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010
| |||
Image copyright problem with File:Bank of America Merrill Lynch.png
Thanks for uploading File:Bank of America Merrill Lynch.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
|
The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
|
Orphaned non-free image File:AltAssets homepage.png
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Wilshire Associates logo.png
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
|
The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
Nomination of Systagenix Wound Management for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systagenix Wound Management until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Technopat (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
Speedy deletion nomination of Bell Automotive
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Bell Automotive, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Systagenix Wound Management
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Systagenix Wound Management requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Alexf(talk) 15:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Zhone
Hi - I see you have a version of an article about Zhone. Are you planning to work on it further? Would you mind if I took your material and used it for an article I'd like to creat? Jeff Song (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- go for it. Good luck |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 03:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:ACLEDA.png
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppet accusation
I joined the Private Equity Task-force to begin a similar history to yourself but concentrating on the ASEAN region and Cambodia in particular, given its increasing popularity and under appreciated status. Towards this end I made the Kith Meng and The Royal Group pages and sought to tidy up numerous others relating to the country's largest business groups, and in doing so I was lead to Leopard Capital, on which I then spent a considerable amount of time, tidying things up and imbuing a more neutral tone whilst removing dead links and/or links leading to the company's website, simultaneously verifying the claims of the entry (and, also removing claims that weren't verifiable). I thought, like helpful administrative User:Discospinster had done previously, I would if anything be thanked for my work? From the perspective of detailing commerce-centric Cambodian based networks, it's fairly practical to overview Cambodia's first and biggest private equity fund -- and no, I'm not connected to Leopard Capital: that is my point -- I'm sure you'd agree. That to claim otherwise (that is that it's not fair practice to overview Cambodia's first and biggest private equity fund, particularly given the country's small-sized population) would risk inhibiting the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias vis-a-vis the already lacklustre coverage of Cambodia's economy, and say be arguably comparable to not mentioning Wall Street when overviewing America's economy, seems reasonably obvious to your truly.
Indeed, Cambodia's business sector is already under-represented on Wikipedia, and I have recently listed it under the 'Expansion Needed' heading on the WikiProject Cambodia page.
After my amendments, subtractions and additions the Leopard Capital listing (I think) is pretty neutral in tone? Can someone please clarify how this is not the case, citing examples of what they consider more neutral? Since being accused I've checked numerous other Wikipedia's for big private equity firms and, if anything, Leopard Capital now seems more neutral and less self-interested than some of the bigger names in the private equity field covered by Wikipedia?
Please explain what's required by you to see things rectified?
I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want this accusation remaining on my account, as I intend to keep contributing and perhaps even moderate one day! I really enjoy the collaborative nature of contributing to Wikipedia.
Cheers (Petersgoldpan (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC))
SPI question
I'll start by saying the SPI isn't my strength, and I'm happy to leave the work to those that do know how to address these issues. I am slightly involved because I've been working with a new editor Petersgoldpan, so when s/he was notified about an SPI investigation, I received a note. I looked at the archived archived investigation, and it appears to be closed. Is it usual practice to notify editors that a case has been closed? If not, should it be? I also note that Petersgoldpan received a notice at their talk page, but I do not see the name on the list. My guess is that there was an intention to add the name, but the case was closed before the name could be added. However, while someone familiar with the usual practices may know what is going on, I do not. Can you enlighten me?--SPhilbrickT 11:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Petersgoldpan's Acceptance
Acceptance
Thanks for the good faith, I assure you I simply wish to contribute to the (impartial) promotion of Cambodia (I used to live there) by helping to fill in the gaps so to speak, with a particular view to what I consider its increasingly noteworthy yet under-represented economy.
Following your accusation I intentionally refrained from adding new information to Leopard Capital's entry because, like I say, I want my account kept unblemished to maintain the one history so hopefully my work can be appreciated in future.
Though I do believe adding to Leopard Capital's entry is quite justified based on its aforementioned significance, I'm not fussed by contending myself with contributing towards this area in line with your suggestions: topics unrelated to (i) Leopard Capital, (ii) related personnel, and (iii) related investments and businesses. But I must for honesty's sake say, I do envisage myself addressing you in future about adding to various Wiki's relating to (i) (ii) and (iii). This isn't due any conflicting interests of mine, but mainly because Cambodia's principal influential drivers of growth are still rather small in number relative to the population size, who's per capita GDP according to the government's 2010 estimates, remember, is USD$783. Therefore, focusing on the nation's principal actors most enabling present and future growth can become slightly problematic, as we have seen...but such is the unavoidable nature of small yet complex "frontier markets" - everything must start from somewhere, after all.
- One question about your suggestions I need ask, however, is: Despite the topic of Cambodia's economy NOT being unrelated to (i), I suppose you're still in good faith allowing me to contribute to Wiki's directly to do with Cambodia's economy? Or am I misinterpreting you? Please, so I don't over step your suggestions User:Urbanrenewal, can you clarify my uncertainty about this (i) point.
Hopefully it will become clearer to you that I in fact have no conflict of interest. I'd appreciate the freedom to contribute like a normal user following an accumulated history of contributions demonstrating my sincere interest in this area as a whole.
Cheers
(Petersgoldpan (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC))
UrbanRenewal & Leopard Capital
User:Urbanrenewal User:Sphilbrick,
Please co-operatively respond to -each- instance where a question mark appears (some of my previous questions have gone unanswered)
1. Despite the topic of Cambodia's economy NOT being unrelated to (i), I suppose you're still in good faith allowing me to contribute to Wiki's directly to do with Cambodia's economy, or am I misinterpreting you?
2. IF interested in Cambodian private equity, it's likely one will be led to Cambodia's largest & only private equity firm - do you agree or disagree?
3. You state LC edits prior to my own were, "largely promotional spam, focused on companies of questionable notability". However except for the Kingdom Breweries and Nautisco links I inserted (for which I apologise and did so not knowing Wikipedia's external links policy), of the many, many other edits I did, precisely what contributions of mine amounted to 'promotional spam' (the history is there, please point this out)?
4. You say previous LC edits are "all very similar in style and content (restoring items removed and originally created by another related editor)". Precisely what items did I add to the LC page that were previously removed from the LC page?
5. Precisely what conduct of my own account makes "it just not believable that these [other, suspicious] accounts are unrelated" to my own account?
UR, you claim that "this small [Leopard Capital] group" has "received an inordinate amount of focus on Wikipedia". However in consideration of the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, I object to your claim that LC has received an 'inordinate amount of focus' as potentially invalid. Considering Wikipedia’s list of private equity firms mentions 204 firms, only 53 of which are not headquartered in America, and 0 which are based in Cambodia...if anything, to aid the very serious and increasingly important Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, it follows that LC and its like actually require more focus, not less.
6. Why is this not the case?
UR, you state as evidence for my having a conflict of interest that "instead of coming from one account - these edits were spread across multiple accounts that were designed to look like they were acting independently". This hardly seems fair to me, insofar as applying this argument as evidence for your claim of my alleged conflict of interest, would mean every Wikipedia entry previously encountering legitimate conflict of interests could not ever have any more contributions made to its page. This is an instance of a new editor minus a conflict of interest has edited the page to improve it overall by reducing bias, improving tone and shortening length.
Above are six questions. In good faith, I ask that you answer each six directly.
Cheers
(Petersgoldpan (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC))