Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:40, 26 June 2007

Note if I vandalised

I deleted an old level one warning {{subst:uw-vand1}}, so if you're here to warn me start with level two. Jeffrey.Kleykamp

No citations?

I'm slightly puzzled by your assertion that this material doesn't include any citations when it clearly does cite the reference at the very beginning. In any case, I agree with your other points so I'm not challenging your removal of the information. --ElKevbo 14:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Creating AfDs

Hey, Jeffrey. I just polished up your nomination for Friendbot so that it complied with what we need for an AfD. Check out this link for how to properly create an AfD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiCookie

Thanks for spotting potential conflicts of interest and pitching in at WP:COIN. Cheers, Durova 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Reward

Hey Jeffrey.Kleykamp,
Congratulations on finding my hidden link. Here's your reward, you've earned it! User:Selfworm/HiddenLinkAward Good job! selfworm 08:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A request for your help with my research

Dear Jeffrey

My name is Jim Sutton and I'm undertaking research in the School of Library, Archive, and Information Studies, UCL.

My research involves studying wiki usage, the reasons why individuals use wikis and the benefits/disadvantages of using wikis to manage knowledge.

I noticed a contribution of yours to the article on wikis and I was wondering if you would agree to my analysing your contributions to Misplaced Pages. This will basically involve calculating how many times you've contributed to Misplaced Pages within the time period of a week.

I was also wondering what your reasons are for using/contributing to Misplaced Pages. I'd be extremely grateful for any feedback you can provide.

If you agree to my analysing your contributions and can provide any feedback as to why you contribute to Misplaced Pages I’d be very grateful. My email address is james.sutton (at) ucl.ac.uk and can be emailed at this address if you agree and have any feedback or questions.

I also have a survey online which I'm using as part of my research at:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/stqa7937/survey/

My Misplaced Pages username is Sutton4019 and my research is being carried out jointly with Melissa Terras at UCL. Her email address is m.terras (at) ucl.ac.uk .

If you have any questions please let me know and thank you for your time. Thanks! --Sutton4019 09:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To the extent

that you found my posting at COIN to be overly harsh, please accept my apologies.

My remarks were not directed at you personally, but rather, were directed at your actions.

I have been dealing with quite a bit of 'innuendo', 'allegation', 'speculation' and 'repeated speculation' and 'repeats of prior speculation' and 'repeats of repeats of links to prior innuendo', almost none of which have any real foundation or substance, but when properly combined result in 'guilty due to repeated appearances on this notice board'. Perhaps I'm missing it, perhaps I have blinders on, but I have not seen the 'critics' of any subject get posted on the noticeboards with anywhere near the frequency.

I'm a receipient of such abusive in my off-wiki (real) life and I am very sensitive to false (or unfounded/unsubstantiated) allegations, or worse non-allegations with only subtle hints of suspicion of misconduct. Whether intended or not, every 'hint' of misconduct is 'remembered' and 'filed' in our brains. Each successive 'hint' adds to the list, until one day..(for example)... who? Jeffrey.Kleykamp? Isn't he the guy that keeps violating conflict of interest? I'm tired of his crap constantly cluttering up this board. He obviously hasn't learned a thing. Lets ban him. ... When, in reality, none of the posts had gone anywhere, no real violations had ever occured, but a nice trail of 'suspicious' 'breadcrumbs' had been created.. and viola.. guilty by quantity of accusations and supported by AGF admins who 'take it on faith' that all those 'past' reports must have been valid.

Thank you for notifying Bravehartbear that you had posted on the COI board. That says a lot for your character. In my short time here, I've seen more than few editors open a report on a noticeboard and never inform the individual. That has happened to me several times, and I consider it very unprofessional behavior.

Also, thank you for taking time to review the edits (I did not) and conclude that nothing harmful was done to the article. That too says something about your character and your intentions. Based on my recent history, and due to your technically 'no substance' report, I jumped to an improper conclusion and I apologize.

However, especially based on your final conclusion, I respectfully submit that 'yet another time' there has been a COI discussion about 'scientology editors' (and this applies to any subject, I just happen to see a lot of Scientology reports because I edit in closely related (cross over) articles).

It's human nature to 'remember the bad'. And, reports on the noticeboards are generally about something that someone 'did' wrong, or that someone is suggesting they did wrong. So even though you didn't intend it, another checkmark exists for 'times scientology has been in the news for conflict of interest editing.'

Hopefully this makes sense, and I'm sorry for coming down resoundingly harsh. I'm on wikibreak because I've reached critical mass and had to step away. The innuendo and non-specific charges and litigious noticeboard filings have ultimately resulted in an (pro-Scientology) editor with only 2 blocks for 3RR, NO RFC's, NO mediation, NO arbcom.... as being tagged as 'disruptive' and being considered for a 3-month community ban.. when, conversely, an (anti-scientology) editor with 7 blocks is not considered disruptive, and an (anti-scientology) editor with their own personal anti-scientology website is deemed not to have a conflict of interest.

It is, quite simply, mind bogglingly frustrating to watch.

Thank you again for the respect you gave Bravehartbear by informing him/her and by ultimately reviewing the edits and reporting no-violation for POV. Best Regards. Peace in God. Lsi john 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment?

I saw your post at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Scientology, and thought that you might be interested in providing your viewpoint, at Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:COFS. That second linked thread deals with issues that had previously been brought up as a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Yours, Smee 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC).