User talk:RJC/Archive 5

Editor review

Sorry it took so long, but I have done an editor review for you as requested here. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

Further to our discussion at the WP:V talk page, I've presented a tightened wording to address the concern about the increase in length. I think it works. Does it look okay to you? --JN466 11:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Plutarch's Symposiacs

Thanks for your comment on Plutarch’s essay. It seems that it’s a present day mnemonic for π (pi); sometimes erroneously attributed to Pythagoras or Archimedes, probably based on Plutarch's Sympos. Probl. VIII, 2 as you indicated. I’ve adapted the article in the List of Greek phrases. --Odysses (₪) 20:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a relevant description in Greek Wikipedia for Π here. According to this article, Plutarch's original phrase was modified as Αεί ο Θεός ο Μέγας γεωμετρεί, το κύκλου μήκος... by N. Chatzidakis, a Greek mathematecian (1872-1942). Plato most probably used fractions, not decimals. --Odysses (₪) 23:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V 2

Hi, you recently supported a talk page proposal (proposal 5) to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. The proposal has attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Brett King

Brett King also goes by the name Hilton Symes, Richard Snoots, and Muhammed Jenzebab. This is the guy who was caught selling counterfeit diplomas in Hong Kong www.iafm.eu He was also banned from any affiliation with the American Academy because of illegal activity which has been reported to the FBI and Cybercrime Homeland Security Agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.137.77 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's well and good, but the WSJ article says what the passages Hilton Symes added to American Academy of Financial Management says it says. If this is a case of petty Schadenfreude at an old rival, it is still accurate Schadenfreude. In any case, Wikipedia is quite clear about no personal attacks, so your comment is a bit out of bounds. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi RJC - I will opt out at this stage. I am not a sock puppet of this Hilton Symes or Brett King (my IP should prove that clearly). I see that the article around Mr. King is now flagged AFD. That's your call. I've been following King's book - I think the fact that it remains on the bestseller list on Amazon, and has been featured by American Bankers Association is more than fair public domain proof of the book's profile. Your call, but I think you are tainting King with the same brush as this AAFM fellow Metz? (based on my read below, etc). Please consider letting this lie and see what the public decide. His book BANK 2.0 is an excellent read Richard Snoots (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not actually up to me. I nominate, the community decides. If you have an opinion, you should certainly post it on the AfD discussion page.
I will note that the article does contain some puffery that you drew my attention to. For example, the citation to support Bank 2.0's being a bestseller is a camera-phone photo of a bookshelf at Singapore bookstore, taken by none other than Brett King himself. A Google Scholar search reveals no reviews of the book, a WorldCat search shows it held by only 15 libraries, while Google News returns only five links, and three of those are errors (e.g., "the Bank's 2.0% target"). The book was not "featured" in the ABA journal, as the article suggests; rather, King was interviewed alongside another author, and his book was mentioned in that context.
As to "guilt by association," I don't think I am mistaken to lump him in with the whole AAFM ARTSPAM crowd, considering his past conduct on Wikipedia and articles related to the AAFM and himself (tendentious editing, sockpuppetry, edit warring, outright lying, etc.). King was associated with the AAFM, until there was some sort of dispute that spilled over onto the Wikipedia pages. Then he and I had an exchange over whether the AAFM was now the IAFM, in which he (rudely, I might add) directed my attention to "sources" that had nothing to do with the issue. I wouldn't say that the taint of the AAFM crowd has unfairly rubbed off on him; he has done more than enough to acquire a taint of his own. If anything, his taint has rubbed off on others unfairly (one innocent editor having been unfairly accused of sockpuppetry and rudely greeted for wandering into the AAFM walled garden of articles). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:RJC I've put a quick list of positive independent reviews on BANK 2.0 (I couldn't find a negative review incidentally), King's book, in the delete discussion page. Perhaps you should have a quick look at those links. A simple news archive search and I saw 40+ reviews and references to the book on industry blogs, in major industry and news/print sources, etc. A question over WP:NPOV on this basis would be really tough to support, surely? I was not involved in the AAFM dispute historically, but it appears that the Wall Street Journal article has put paid to the he said/she said once and for all.

Having said that, the history on AAFM has nothing to do with the article in question as it makes no mention of AAFM or IAFM or the disputed content. It is a completely separate subject IMHO. Thanks for your detailed answer - as you suggested I've posted my support for a keep. Richard Snoots 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:RJC I would also like to add my support to keep this article. The deletion is being pushed by George Mentz aka Sock Puppet Doctorlaw, GordianG et al. He is probably also IP address 24.172.137.77 who posted the first accusation here that Brett King also goes by the name Hilton Symes (false), Richard Snoots (false), and Muhammed Jenzebab (false). This is the guy who was caught selling counterfeit diplomas in Hong Kong www.iafm.eu He was also banned from any affiliation with the American Academy because of illegal activity which has been reported to the FBI and Cybercrime Homeland Security Agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC). This is an unfounded accusation that George mentz has spread around the internet. george mentz owns teh web site www.iafm.eu where he posts various persoanl attacks against Brett King and others. This is all well documented and can be verified by checking Mentz's prolific websites including the said www.iafm.eu and http://www.projectmanagementcertification.org/. All of this ahs nothing to do with this article which is simply about ta genuine author of a genuine book. To succumb to deletion is exactly what Mentz, Doctorlaw and his various other alias want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickietr (talk • contribs)

Mentz has nothing to do with this deletion discussion: I said that the page should be deleted as the recreation of deleted material. In fact, it was the deletion discussion for Brett King the first time around that brought my attention to the AAFM and associated ARTSPAM. Whether he is being persecuted by a former business associate or not, he fails the notability guidelines. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there are going to be many pages in the future you are going to have to Delete RJC based on your personal views of Brett King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Meric You had better get started... Richard Snoots (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Chartered Wealth Manager

Hello RJC. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Chartered Wealth Manager, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010 == ==Your recent edits

Please do not add anti-promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to American Academy of Financial Management. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for hate speech, advertising or self promotion. Thank you. GordianG ^Talk_Contribs 17:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No anti-promotional material, eh? Hate speech? Good God, I am never moving this "warning template" to my archive. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

AAFM Article

Hello RJC, I am just letting you know that you should consider recusing yourself from the AAFM editing. While you are an excellent and well recognized editor, you are using the words bogus and dubious in conjunction with this article which is totally unethical. Promoting or advertising in reverse is bias, and bias is still advertising.

We urge all involved to not vandalize or remove the 50 plus 3rd party government referneces and citations. An editor should not selectively remove all the facts and then inject 1 negative commentary or press while ignoring hundreds of viable articles, references, dictionaries etc.

It is one thing to ignore a blog, but yet another to ignore federal trademark registrations, FINRA Government Regulatory, Department of Labor Occupational handbook, various Wall Street Journal Articles etc. Furthermore, ignoring ABA Accreditation which is for all USA law Schools is also concerning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordiang (talk • contribs) 17:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

AAFM Article Neutral Point of View Needed

Dear RJC, it appears that have a personal issue with AAFM. We should ask a neutral editor or Wike Supervisor to re-edit the AAFM article. As referenced in the article for all to see, the AAFM and its double accreditation requirements are in included the definitive and governmental works of Investopedia, the US Government Department of Labor and the FINRA Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The Wall Street Journals' very own directory and guide of financial organizations includes the AAFM and the AAFM credentials along with the accredited education requirements which have been publicly disclosed to the FINRA for over 6 years..

Using your own edit comments, you state these conflicts which apply also to your recent edits.

• This is not a place for press releases or to list every organization that recognizes the AAFM.
• General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view
• Grotesque NPOV violation

We hope that you can allow the article to be more reflective of what the FINRA and WSJ disclosure documents actually state. Moreover, the recent public disclosures posted by AAFM Press show the actual documents which disprove and reject any confusing cliams and quotes in the one and only included WSJ article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.218.8.166 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am uninvolved with the various controversies surrounding the AAFM; my involvement is limited to the attempts made by various parties to turn the AAFM article into WP:ARTSPAM. Actually, I would be entirely open to having the article permanently full-protected so that only administrators could edit it. But then you would ask them, too, to withdraw, since they too would refuse to turn the article into a marketing vehicle that treated the fact that every mainstream news story on the organization was negative as evidence for its worldwide fame. Excuse me if I treat you, your sock puppets, and any IP that makes the same claim as you and your sock puppets as proceeding in bad faith. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 03:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Hobbes Natural Laws

Browsing the Natural Law page I noticed your fixing of an act of vandalism on a false twentieth law. This is what I have been looking for; I've been told to find a twentieth law but am not sure whether or not the following qualifies.

I've been directed to “The Lawes of Nature are Immutable and Eternall, For Injustice, Ingratitude, Arrogance, Pride, Iniquity, Acception of persons, and the rest, can never be made lawfull. For it can never be that Warre shall preserve life, and Peace destroy it.” but am unsure if this may be designated as a "law". Your input would be greatly appreciated. Jayfrus (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not in the imperative, so I don't think it counts as a law. Who told you to find a twentieth law? In Ch. 15 of the Leviathan, he stops enumerating at nineteen. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly it was a Political Philosophy professor of mine and I've been scouring the Leviathan and am unsure as to what can be stretched to qualify as a law. I've been told that it would require a complete reading of the text in order to discern which is the twentieth law. The above is the closest I could get. Thanks for the response. Jayfrus (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: AfD

I apologise, I meant Richard Snoots. Completely my fault there, mixed up his name with your's, and saw your comment as a continuation of his. :) --res Laozi speak 05:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Poseidon

I think you did a very good job,but you can add some references,Reference No(8)(Adams John Paul.Mycenean Divinities: "E-ne-si-da-o-ne") after No(4),and the following references after "Demeter": "Earth Mother" :[htpp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Demeter Online Etymology Dictionary "Demeter"], [htpp://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Demeter.html Theoi project "Demeter"]94.65.248.80 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not the etymology of Demeter that I think needs a citation, but that she and Poseidon were linked in some non-trivial fashion. Looking at the Middle Liddel, we can find a source that her name is formed from da and meter (here), but it would be original research to suggest that this in any sense links her with Poseidon beyond this common element in their names. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hamilton and Machiavelli

Thanks for the help on this. I can use another pair of eyes. The intention of edit you point to was only to claim relatively less, or to make less of a notable point out of the link between NM and AH. The version I had written before did not seem balanced to me because it seemed to make Washington and Hamilton equally influenced compared to the other founding fathers mentioned in that paragraph. Can you have a look at the wording see if you really think it says he was not influenced at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Nick again

Concerning your shuffle edit, which is basically fine by me, I suggest moving the question of "Machiavellianism" AFTER the common themes, because the two sections it is now inserted between were worked up to try to follow one after the other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:V & WP:MEDRS

Is there a reason you deleted the link to WP:MEDRS from WP:V? DigitalC (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as is clear from the discussion on WT:V that had gone on for some time, QuackGuru's edit lacked the consensus necessary for a change to the policy page. I undid it. Subsequent comments to the policy talk page have confirmed that the edit lacked consensus. QuackGuru has gone into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode, saying things like the objections to his point aren't specific enough to count as objections. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooops!

Re: Sun Tzu Thanks for catching my error on the BC. I don't know why I did otherwise, besides obvious misreading. On the Western point, it's not OR because it is what is reported by the cited source. Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I remember that those statements had been removed in the past because they were flagged as needing citations. Still, if the source says that, it may appropriate to say that a particular scholar thinks that, but we can't say that Sun Tzu is perplexing only to round-eyes, even if we do have a source. And if the source does say that, I'm not sure that we should report it even as that scholar's view. Perhaps, after noting what many perceive to be its oddity, say that Eminent Scholar argues that these perplexities disappear if one is well acquainted with Eastern culture and give his reasons, about a sentence or two. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I took care to attribute the view. Vassyana (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

American Academy of financial management Bogus UNESCO credentials

Hi RJC

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&action=history

Can you please explain the WP:SYNTH decision when it is abundantly apparent that the AAFM are claiming UNESCO recognition when the UNESCO websites says that any accrediting organisation claiming UNESCO recognition is BOGUS.

No conclusion was reached - just two contrary statements from two reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickietr (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The American Academy of Financial Management claims to be recognised by UNESCO to quote Oct. 1st 2009 - AAFM ® becomes 1st in the world to achieve 100% transparency, listing, membership recognition and disclosure with : NBEA, ISBE, AACSB, ACBSP, RSOF, ANSI, AABFS, IIFM, UNESCO, DOE, DOL, IBA, IMA, AFMLA, and NOCA. See http://www.financialcertified.com/press.html The UNESCO website http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=48787&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html states Recently, there has been an increase in the number of requests from individuals, recognition bodies and accrediting agencies concerning dubious providers of higher education that use UNESCO’s name or logo to give the impression that they are recognized providers of higher education.

UNESCO is an intergovernmental body. It does not have the mandate to accredit nor to recognise higher education institutions, programmes, diplomas or accrediting agencies.

Any provider of higher education or accrediting agency which claims or gives the impression of being accredited and/or recognised by UNESCO should be looked upon with caution. Such institutions or accrediting agencies may use different fraudulent modes.

For example: • Institutions offering/delivering fake diplomas which feature UNESCO’s logo; • Institutions claiming that one may contact UNESCO to have its accreditation confirmed; • Institutions stating to be listed in a so-called “UNESCO Higher Education Institutions Registry”, which does not exist in reality; • Institutions claiming to promote the values and ideals of UNESCO; e.g.; “the Educational Creed of UNESCO”, or the WCHE recommendations, etc.; • Institutions inserting UNESCO’s name in their URL address to give the impression of official link; • Institutions claiming to be recognised by UNESCO because of -they are hosting a UNESCO chair; and • False claims by Bogus institutions that are linked to NGOs affiliated with UNESCO. In case of doubt, one can refer to the competent relevant higher education body in the country of the institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickietr (talk • contribs) 00:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Source A: AAFM is recognized by UNESCO. Source B: all organizations that claim to be recognized by UNESCO are bogus. A+B=AAFM is bogus. That is a syllogism. It is a valid one, but a syllogism nonetheless. If someone has not written about AAFM's bogus UNESCO claims, we cannot draw attention to them in the article, even if true. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

Hey, do you want to start the merge for this? I don't know how to do it, but you may.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Plato's Seventh Letter -explanation of Forms

I assume that you edited a lot of the Seventh Letter page. The explanation about a perfect circle, as Plato described in his own words, has far too much rubbish. Who did this terrible editing and made barely no clear and direct references to the actual content of the letter in this section? Why no mention of his good examples about the idea of a perfect circle, the definition of a circle, a drawing, and so on? No mention of the Forms? Why? Why fully delete what was written before? Are you making quick and giant deletes without actually improving what was written before you? Just because you have a PhD does not make you the final expert about this letter. What did Plato write in his own words? I do not need your personal opinions or your modern ideas thrown into the past, long before you. What did Plato write, in his own words, without all your personal ideas thrown into it? Why delete any mention of the Forms or Plato's example of a circle? What kind of editing is that? Please edit far better next time. Thanks. --74.198.151.118 (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If I must refer to Plato's own words, I am engaging in original research. I removed what I could not derive from secondary sources. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 07:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)