User talk:David Lyons

People with titles should not be referred to by surname alone. eg) Sir Elton

Hi David Lyons - I noticed this edit summary and wondered if you have some more reasoning behind it - I have no intention of changing your edit. Am concerned that Mr Mrs Ms Miss etc are titles and would therefore require the end of the "ID by surname alone" convention. Unless there is more to it, of course. SmithBlue 05:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) :Hi David Lyon - thanks for your reply. It does seem to to be a British protocol - I was a bit puzzled at first - here in Australia perhaps the most famous Sir would be Sir John Kerr, a former Goveror General, and he hardly ever is Sir Kerr. Usually Kerr or Sir John Kerr. But, no matter, the articles topic is British. SmithBlue 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

N Baker author notability

"Anyhows, this case has gone to the mediaton cabel". What are you refering to here? If its "Request for comment" then I think thats already happened. Deciding what a reputable publisher is seems a common problem. See [Quorn] if you want a scatalogical case. I am not clear about Metropolis - though I guess similar cases have happened before. SmithBlue 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NBaker and [WP:Conflict of interest]

I have an unevidenced belief, of only light-moderate weight, that Sparkzilla has a uniquely close relationship to Devlin, in that I, for reasons that escape me, think they may be the same person. If this belief can be evidenced then [WP:Conflict of interest] must also be considered. Given that the only two articles I can remember reading about Devlin are Metropolis - Devlins paper and Nick Baker I assume that something on them may have helped me form this belief. I may get time to look into this in the next 48 hours. SmithBlue 06:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain on Wikipedia policy relating to an editors' identity, so it is perhaps only co-incidence that where-ever there is a link to Metropolis, Crisscross and Japan Today the hand of Sparkzilla can be found. David Lyons 11:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest" is, I think, a current hot topic - Microsoft paid someone to edit an article about some of their software. I suggest that getting any Conflict of Interest resolved initially may be more productive as, if present , it needs to be factored in to the whole mediation. (I have very limited knowledge. But. If I was the mediator and someone raised CoI late I would probably refuse to continue with the case as I think CoI needs to be resolved first. Or I'd ask very hard questions about the timimg of introducing CoI.) I am not clear enough about BLP etc to have an opinion on the case. But it makes interesting reading. SmithBlue 11:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Sparkzilla has indicated a dis-inclination to mediate, it would seem that it is a non-starter anyway, which leaves a request for comment; third opinion; or arbitration open. However, I have read between the lines of your comment...before proceeding down that avenue. Ball in the other court also springs to mind. David Lyons 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You requested mediation.

I am taking this case for mediation. My name is Genick Bar-Meir, Ph.D. and email is barmeir at the site known as gmail.com --potto 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

potto/genick is not a member of the Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee, and cannot assign himself to a mediation attempt. You should consider the request unfilled and continue with the RfA process. Sorry about putting this on your userpage, but I'm replying to the potto post. You may wish to move this entire thread to your talk page. Maury 13:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a very brief look over the matter and I really do think you have a valid concern to bring to the RfC process. RfC is an attempt to resolve conflicts, and no matter who is "right", the conflict does exist one way or the other. This is precisely the sort of thing that the RfC was created to help with. I know the whole procedure side of the wiki can be a bit daunting. If you'll like a little help getting started I'll be happy to do what I can.

And I'd also like to point out that I think you've handled yourself more than a little tact throughout the portion of the thread I have seen to date. I don't think you'll have any problems finding other admins willing to help. The same can be said for Sparkzilla as well, I should point out, I'm actually surprised how levelheaded the whole thing has remained (I've seen it all, let me tell ya!)

But before we go there, I'd like to take one last crack at some common ground on the talk page. Any complaints? I guess my concern here is that it looks like a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and maybe the RfC is a big hammer on a small nail. It also appears Spark may not be all that interested in the article any more, at least judging by a recent comment he left on his talk page. Maury 15:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. There are several issues with the article as it currently stands. The intro could do with a make-over, and the varying accounts of Baker's movements prior to his trip to Japan, should perhaps be included amongst other things. It requires a bit of leg work, which I will try to address as time allows. Regarding the Baker-Devlin conflict, I agree it might be a little premature to go for a RfC.

I believe the problematic areas are:

i) CoI - If Sparkzilla is, as has been alluded to, close to Metropolis/Crisscross/Japan Today, (S)he should exercise much greater caution in editing this article and I would call upon her/him now to declare their interest.

ii) Reliable sources - I doubt whether the response to the questions Sparkzilla posed at the reliable sources project page would have had the same positive outcome if (S)he "outed" himself at the very start.

iii) Undue weight - I have outlined my opinion on this at length in this talk page archive.

I would like to take another crack at it too on the talk page. David Lyons 15:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla

Until you feel capable of moderating your tone and providing one grain of evidence in your assumptions and accusations, kindly refrain from posting to my talk page. Thank you so much. David Lyons 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not at liberty to delete comments on your talk page: See WP:TPG

Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

The above is not a personal attack, but an observation regarding your conflict of interest and your obsessive behaviour regarding Baker. If you take it as an attack, that's up to you. We can just keep going like this for the next year if you like, it's really up to you. Sparkzilla 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All this is terribly interesting, but WP:TPG has no relevance here. Jeez, you viciously attack me, and now I have to point you where to run off to to look up next, which acting in good faith, as always, I will do. The policy you are looking for is WP:UP, 'cos you see - this is a USER talk page, not an ARTICLE talk page. Note this bit:

"Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit"

and no we won't keep going here until next year, 'cos I'll remove this later. And you call me obsessive... David Lyons 01:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong once again. Your user page is here User:David_Lyons. This page is your user talk page, where you cannot remove comments, especially when they concern your conflict of interest on Wikipedia.

Just keep asking yourself is this really worth the trouble? Sparkzilla 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ho-hum - onward and upward...read it carefully. I've CAPPED & Bolded the relevant bits.

"Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their USER SPACE as they see fit"

• Your user page is the page at User:Example (or Special:Mypage)
• Your user TALK PAGE is the page at User talk:Example (or Special:Mytalk)
• Your user subpages are pages of the form User:Example/Lipsum (Special:Mypage/Lipsum) or User talk:Example/Lipsum (Special:Mytalk/Lipsum).
• YOUR USER SPACE IS THE COLLECTION OF ALL THE ABOVE.

Capice? David Lyons 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Just keep going.... Sparkzilla 02:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Feeling lost? David Lyons 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I received a confirmation of your position on talk pages from an Admin on my talk page Sparkzilla 02:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article National Union of General Workers

A request for comments has been filed about the use of anonymous sources in reliable publications. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:National_Union_of_General_Workers#Request_for_Comment_-_Use_of_anonymous_sources_in_reliable_publications in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. Sparkzilla 06:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How weird was that? Oh, I see you've encounterd Sparky before. I hadn't had the, um, pleasure. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick Baker and Metropolis reporting

I believe that Metropolis is a credible news source and can be used as a reference in articles. If you don't believe so, then the burden is on you to show why that publication isn't credible or why it's claims are blatantly "exceptional." Cla68 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I too am surprised you would suggest that the burden of Metropolis' reliabilty should lie on those who think it should not be included, rather than the other way around. I do not think that's in line with current (or previous) Wiki guidelines/policies. Heatedissuepuppet 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note and thank you for the time you spent reworking Baker's page. I don't have any problem with Metropolis as a source at this time. I think however you are confused regarding the "burden of evidence" - it is not upon me, but the editor adding or reverting contentious material to show it is reliable, etc.. See WP:V

The problem is, at the moment there is only one source for the material I removed. According to WP:RS

Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

Is the material I removed exceptional? Yes, because in the context of the article, it suggests that Iris Baker and the support group misled the general public. Since she was collecting donations as well, it could also be interpreted as fraud. Even the title of the article referenced is Convicted drug smuggler Nick Baker’s story is not what it first appeared. David Lyons 08:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

David, you already asked this question a while back, and the answer was "no". [1] The exact response by the Admin is "I would not say that these are exceptional claims".

The central claim that Baker misled the public is backed up with mutliple sources. Single sources that back up the centralo claim allowed, and are not exceptional in their own right. An exceptional claim would be a single source that said, for example, Baker was a homosexual. That's what it means by "unexpected". Sparkzilla 09:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla. Hmm. This doesn't ring a bell with me. However, I do not quote the unexpected aspect of WP policy - I am more concerned with the character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended bit. David Lyons 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the central claim that he deceived the public is supported by multiple sources. Sparkzilla 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the three paragraphs I removed are not supported by multiple claims - the only other reference I can find is the Swindon Advertiser - and that makes no reference to the Belgian dupes, David Drew, nor the British Embassy. David Lyons 09:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The three paragraphs you removed are claims that support the central case that Baker misled the public. Almost every Wikipedia page has single sources like that. As long as they support the central claims then they are not exceptional. While I respect your determination, I sincerely hope we will not have to go through this again -- we already did it once. Thank you for your consideration. Sparkzilla 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla. I appreciate your input, but I am not yet entirely convinced. As this is a BLP, we have to get it right. I shall mull over these comments and WP policy and leave the article as is for now. Thanks. David Lyons 09:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal/rewriting of RFC/talk page comments

This is to inform you that I have asked for admin assistance regarding your removal and rewriting of my comments on the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article. The discussion is here [2] Sparkzilla 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst you forgot to mention removing my comments?!?! Tut, tut. Anyways, it's a moot point - I refuse to further partake in this ridiculously badly hashed RfC of yours. David Lyons 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

David, I would suggest you wipe completely your section and then explain your current view. Addhoc 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I was wondering if you would be ready to agree to retire from the Baker article? The page is in good shape as-is, including your recent edits. I suggest that if an external editor edits something you wrote that you are able to edit to restore the page to its current state. I expect the same lattitude to do the same. -- Sparkzilla talk! 09:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Links in Wikipedia to improve Goodle rankings misunderstanding

I saw from a recent edit summary on the Nick Baker article that you appear to believe that placing links in Wikipedia will improve an off-Wiki's Google rankings. That isn't the case. In order to combat spam, links to outside sites on Wikipedia aren't tracked by Google and therefore won't improve that site's Google ranking by being listed in Wikipedia. Cla68 12:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that so. Thanx for the heads up.

I reverted the changes. Please do not remove relevant reference material. -- Sparkzilla talk! 13:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

This is to inform you that if you revert Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) again you will be reported for a violation of WP:3RR and may be blocked form editing the article. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandwich shop

Thanks for this! I'd looked so carefully, but guess I missed the first sentence! Sorry. --Slp1 01:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries :-) David Lyons 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

flee

I will look again, but i still think "flee" sounds too npov.

but, this quote from fairtrials.org states: When Nick was asked to open the suitcase for inspection, he readily agreed, advising that the suitcase belonged to his "mate", pointing to Mr Jones who was leaving the customs area

so, this seems to state that Prunier was already out of customs before nick had his bag checked. that seems sort of important, or the story doesn't make sense somewhere, because why would prunier be out of the line first if he was waiting for the bags. anyways, it just shows someone's story isn't checking out, and that seems to be more important and relevant than how he left the airport.

I will bring it up on the talk page, but i think left the airport is more npov than flee. if flee is used, it should be put in quotes, at the very least.XinJeisan 07:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

yup, there it is in the paragraph third from the bottom .. well, there goes my credibility....XinJeisan 07:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there. I guess I missed the discussion at the Nick Baker story. Keep up the good work. Wanzhen 03:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)