User talk:AlistairKelman

January 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Robert Schifreen, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored my edit to Robert Schifreen, because the citation was already there in the first footnote ! I named his co-defendant Steve Gold whose details were in the Times article

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, AlistairKelman. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi AlistairKelman! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 16:56, Tuesday, May 3, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi AlistairKelman! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 12:12, Wednesday, May 4, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, AlistairKelman. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Since your question was archived, I'll respond here. If you do create articles on the separate topics and they are considered acceptable, a disambiguation page will be allowed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate of life

Sorry, the article on WikiTribune is not a reliable source for this subject and so your addition has been removed. It's an account of your personal experience. (You wrote in the edit summary "This procedure is not yet documented by local authorities or the UK government but I can vouch for it being the correct procedure from personal experience") It doesn't mean we don't believe you so please don't be offended. Please try adding material from a law book or a similar source. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTRIBUNE can be a reliable source - it is designed to counter fake news - My essay in WikiTRIBUNE was approved by a professional WikiTRIBUNE editor. Hence it can now be used as the validating the earlier materials and as a source, AlistairKelman (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it doesn't work like that here. We have no connection with WikiTribune nor is anything written there a reliable source, certainly not your account of your personal experiences. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable source. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmn - I think we have a stand-off. If you check the entry in Wikipedia for WikiTribune [[1]] I think you will find you are out of date. All content that is published by WikiTribune has to be approved by professional editors employed by WikiTribune. AlistairKelman (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a citation for the above claim so I can update the article. Thanks!

The standard for whether a source is reliable is that it engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy. Wikitribune was opened to the public in October 2017, so it is a bit early to determining whether it has a reputation for accuracy.

The source you cited[2] is by "Alistair Kelman" and your username is AlistairKelman, so I see a clear WP:COI violation there.

You claim "My essay in WikiTRIBUNE was approved by a professional WikiTRIBUNE editor". Is there any particular reason why you did not name this "professional WikiTRIBUNE editor" who approved the essay? The essay at Wikitribune has an "edit story" tab. Does this "professional WikiTRIBUNE editor" monitor the page for changes and approve them as well?

At [3] in your response to John Towler you pretty much waved your hands and ducked the question ("I want to know the process by which such a story gets to be published on WikiTribune") and instead responded with "I always do my edits on Wikipedia under my real name" and "What this turns on is my reputation for honesty and fair dealing. I choose to write for WT and to publish under my own name". I also edit Wikipedia under my own name, but nobody here thinks that the requirements of WP:V are met by any reputation for honesty and fair dealing I might have. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to check my references, I see that the essay in question is now a 404 error page. See my comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wiki Tribune. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The position is as follows: In 2016 following the incident with my local council (as I reported it in WikiTribune three days ago) I documented in Wikipedia the correct approach, the procedure and the legal reasons why and how a Certificate of Life could be obtained from a UK local authority. I wrote this from personal knowledge and through my understanding of the rules and laws surrounding the matter - I am a barrister who was in private practice for many decades with considerable experience and knowledge of the law and the practice of law. I wrote this up as information to help anyone else who ran into the problem and so that council official could approach the problem in the correct manner. I wrote this up as a neutral point of view.

In 2018, as a pilot contribution to the new WikiTribune I wrote an essay explaining how Wikipedia could be used to improve bureaucracy basing it upon this incident. This was submitted to the professional editors at WikiTribune who decided to publish it. As a result of it being published a editor on Wikipedia decided to remove my explanations to the Certificate of Life article on the grounds that the source of the information was not from a legal publication or other similar source. This has nulified what was a useful resource for the public, for pensioners who wish to obtain certificates of life and for local councils. There is no other source of valid information which can be cited.

But up until my article appeared in WikiTribune the "unsubstantied addition" had been up there and had been a useful resource for everyone for well over a year ! Its removal might well be considered an example of rule based myopia which can get in the way of the true aims and objectives of a trusted public encyclopedia contributed to by civil minded citizens.

As a result of the back and forth Peter Bale, the Launch Editor of WikiTribune has taken down the article "pending a further look at how it came to be and the interaction with Wikipedia." I support this action with the caveat that if WikiTribune is to counter “fake news” then we need some way of working co-operatively with Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors so that Wikipedia accepts content from WikiTribune as reliable and true. My take on this is that Wikipedia should treat an article on WikiTribune which has gone through its editorial processes in the same way as it treats an article from a mainstream broadsheet or magazine such as the Telegraph or the Spectator. To do that WikiTribune probably needs a hierarchy of contributors who are themselves rated for honesty, truth and reliability – a bit like an eBay rating system but operated by the WT professional editors. I edit and write under my own name. I maintain a public presence (www.alikelman.com). I am accountable for my actions and inactions. Just like professional journalists – except that they can write better than I can.AlistairKelman (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. The above is a 100% pure steaming pile of crap. What you call your being "accountable for my actions and inactions. Just like professional journalists" so far has consisted of you:

Ignoring our rules on original research.

Ignoring our rules on conflicts of interest.

Ignoring our rules on verifiability.

Ignoring our rules on edit warring.

Ignoring the clear instructions given to you at WP:DRN.

Exhibiting clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior.

Telling a baldfaced lie by claiming that your essay "has gone through [WikiTribune's] editorial processes in the same way as it treats an article from a mainstream broadsheet or magazine such as the Telegraph or the Spectator." That isn't true and you know it. You took advantage of the fact that WikiTribune is only a few months old and hasn't quite decided how to treat essays. If it weren't for your severe WP:IDHT problem you would have gotten the point when you read the following by Jimbo Wales (Founder of Wikipedia and founder of the separate website WikiTribune):

":"

"My sincere goal is that every story published at WikiTribune be suitable as a reliable source for Wikipedia. This means that every claim must be carefully confirmed by either another reliable source or evidentiary support, made as public as it can be made. This story did not meet that.

"We are still exploring questions about whether or not to allow "essays" as opposed to hard news stories, and for me, this is another nail in the coffin for essays. The author should have published it on a blog or on Medium or something like that." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)"[4][reply]

Please stop your behavior now before you damage your reputation further by being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Guy, my essay DID go through the WikiTribune editorial processes as can be seen by its history. It was submitted as a potential contribution to WikiTribune with the notice "First Draft for WikiTribune Editors". It was slightly edited and approved for publication by Charles Anderson who is one of WikiTribune's paid professional editors(https://www.wikitribune.com/user/charles-anderson/). Up until my essay appeared in WikiTribune nobody had any problems with what I had added to the Wikipedia entry on Certificate of Life in 2016. What I added was (and is) factual and correct. The actions of Wikipedia editors have nulified what was a useful resource for the public, for pensioners who wish to obtain certificates of life and for local councils. There is no other source of valid information which can be cited.AlistairKelman (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Even as we speak, the story is being pulled from WikiTribune, as it does not meet our standards by a very wide margin. You have my apologies for the inconvenience." are you having trouble understanding? Wikitribune wants to be recognized as a reliable source. Part of that is removing or retracting mistakes. Accepting your essay was a mistake which they have corrected. Good job ignoring everything I wrote above, BTW. Also, nice touch posting "All my contributions to Wikipedia are under my own name, my real name, and I put my reputation for truth and honesty at stake for every amendment I make or article I write" while actively using an alternate sockpuppet account on Wikipedia. Forget what I said about "Please stop your behavior now before you damage your reputation further". Your reputation here is already in tatters. I look forward to another response where you refuse to discuss the things you have done on Wikipedia to ruin your reputation here. I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Guy - my AliKelman account was not a sockpuppet account - it came about because one time when logging onto Wikipedia to edit or contribute stuff I forgot that my account name was AlistairKelman. I am sometimes called Ali Kelman instead of Alistair Kelman so there was no attempt to mislead or hide. You have now deleted the AliKelman account and I have no issue with that. AlistairKelman (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More bullshit. You last logged on and edited using your sockpuppet account two days ago.[5] And our handy Editor Interaction Analyser[6] shows you logging into one account, making an edit, then logging out and relogging into your other account to make another edit.

You keep breaking our rules. WP:SOCK is very clear that what you did was not allowed. Cut the crap and just this once admit that you broke the rules. It will be a new and exiting experience for you, and I believe that everyone should experience being honest at least once in their life. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Guy - I use multiple computers at different times of the day which contain cookies that remember the profile I last used on that machine over a protracted period. How on earth can I AliKelman be a sockpuppet for AlistairKelman when they are clearly the same person? Indeed if you look at my personal website this has been made clear for years. When you are in a hole Guy stop digging.AlistairKelman (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Go ahead and refuse to read WP:SOCK just like you have refused to read and respond to every other Wikipedia policy that anyone has asked you to read and understand. I am done attempting to explain our policies to you. Figure out what they are and start obeying them or you are very likely to end up blocked from editing Wikipedia under WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Certificate of life. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "User talk:AlistairKelman#Certificate_of_life". The case is now closed: please see the case commentary for the specific reason. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 19:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by volunteer: Please see WP:RS and WP:RSN.

The discussion at the dispute resolution has been closed. Your comments are not within the scope of DRN. As it says above, you may take it to the reliable source noticeboard. Any further efforts to use DRN for a dispute that is outside its scope may, if necessary, be taken to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI Notice

Hello, AlistairKelman. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In particular, you are not allowed to write an essay on another site and then use that same essay a source on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AlistairKelman. Guy Macon (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI decision was "The article is deleted from WikiTribune and I blocked the alternate account [ AliKelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ]. Let's see what happens next." --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am called either Alistair Kelman or Ali Kelman - and I answer to both names. The only reason I had an alternate account was that at one time I forgot that which real name I had registered under and I registered again. Hence I have no issue with the blocking of AliKelman.AlistairKelman (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More bullshit. You last logged on and edited using your sockpuppet account two days ago.[7] And our handy Editor Interaction Analyser[8] shows you logging into one account, making an edit, then logging out and relogging into your other account to make another edit.

You keep breaking our rules. WP:SOCK is very clear that what you did was not allowed. Cut the crap and just this once admit that you broke the rules. It will be a new and exiting experience for you, and I believe that everyone should experience being honest at least once in their life. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Guy - I use multiple computers at different times of the day which contain cookies that remember the profile I last used on that machine over a protracted period. How on earth can I AliKelman be a sockpuppet for AlistairKelman when they are clearly the same person? Indeed if you look at my personal website this has been made clear for years. When you are in a hole Guy stop digging. AlistairKelman (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares why you keep breaking the rules. The fact is that you do break the rules. Figure out how to stop breaking the rules or you are likely to end up blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cachebox TV for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cachebox TV is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cachebox TV 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other communities

Hi. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there are other wikis out there that don't have the bureaucratic rules of Wikipedia. See, for example, Category:How-to websites and Category:Wiki communities. These websites could easily host your essays and how-to guides. Because of its popularity, it's tempting to use Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic content, but doing so is against its rules (see WP:NOTHOWTO). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that my entry is encyclopedic content - it just appears to fall foul of the fact that it happened to me and there are no sources to cite other than myself. Its utility to the public and local councils arises because it is in Wikipedia. AlistairKelman (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is not encyclopaedic content. It is an anecdote. See WP:IINFO. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What JzG said. I am sorry, but without a reliable source, the information provided is original research. It cannot be included the encyclopedia. !dave 13:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CacheboxTV logo - December 2014.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CacheboxTV logo - December 2014.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SafeCast (April 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SafeCast and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:SafeCast, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AlistairKelman! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:SafeCast concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:SafeCast, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:SafeCast

Hello, AlistairKelman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SafeCast".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]