Talk:Charles Corm

How To Changes Photos

Hello dear contributors. Sorry if this is not the place to leave you this message. Please let know where and how is best to do so. I am reaching out to you regarding the images displayed by Google for a Google search on "Charles Corm". Apart from images 1, 3 and 6 (in the order they appear on my system), the other images have no relationship whatsoever with Charles Corm. I was wondering if you knew how I/we could remedy this as it is causing a lot of confusion. Is inserting images in Charles Corm's Wikipedia page the solution? If not, what do you suggest? Thanks for your expert help.--Bcd3174 18:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcd3174 (talk • contribs)

Google seems to prioritise popular international sites such as Wikipedia, which explains why the Wikipedia image in this article gets prioritised. Most of the first 20 images that come up are of this Charles Corm, which is a pretty good result in my view. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

COI

This article has been edited by at least three accounts that are COI and/or paid editors. One was blocked for being part of a major paid sockpuppet farm. Another has posted on WP that he is related to the subject of this article. The name of the third suggests that he is connected to the subject of this article--it also appears that this edit was done in connection with a paid editor--admins should feel free to email me for link to external site. In short, this article is the product of massive paid/COI editing, in violation of the Terms of Use [1]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, the main COI editor hasn't been back here for a long time. Charles Corm (Senior) is clearly a notable figure. A "connected contributor" template on the Talk page may be a better solution, rather than beating the article with a stick. I agree, however, that the sourcing for some of the extreme claims needs improving. Sionk (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Logical Cowboy, I've removed the COI tag because it appears as though you added the tag in response to the edit by Corm1234). Looking at edit history it is clear that this was the editors only edit to this page. The change of the photo name was a legitimate edit because File:Charlescormphoto.jpg is a duplicate of a photo for which permission has been received and confirmed at OTRS. Can you tell us who the other alleged COI accounts are apart from the one noted above.? Green Giant (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Green Giant, it's possible that you misread my earlier comments, as I said there were three COI accounts, not one. They are Klokus, Bcd3174, and Corm1234. One is blocked as a paid editor for a giant sockfarm. The other two have claimed to be family members. In addition, one of the other two appears to be associated with the same giant sockfarm for paid editing. I am being a little vague here due to WP:OUTING however I will gladly turn over links, including the external website, to any admin. Logical Cowboy (talk)

As per above, I added a "connected contributer" template here, on the Talk page. Bcd3174 hasn't been back here for months and, from what I can see Klokus and Newzealand123 haven't edited the page at all. Bcd3174 had been in various heated (and amicable) discussions about their edits (with me and others) and seemed to have understood their responsibilities. The problem is no longer current. Sionk (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that your eyes may have failed you as Klokus has indeed edited this page. Again, I don't understand why you are going to such great efforts to defend COI editing. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding an image is not against any Wikipedia policy. If COI editing becomes promotional, or violates Wikipedia's guidelines in some way, then of course we should remove it. In contrast, you seem to have an extreme deletionist view which I don't subscribe to. Sionk (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make comments about my views; you have no idea what my views are. The statement you just made is obviously false. According to the WP:BLOCK policy, "Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." Linking to an image is a kind of editing. Therefore blocked editors are supposed to be prevented from linking to images. Do you really thinking that linking to images is not a kind of editing? That would be absurd. Again, I urge you to reconsider your efforts to help a large sockfarm belonging to a paid, blocked editor who is flagrantly violating the Terms of Use [2]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Restoring material by uploaded by blocked editing

I have deleted the link to this image [3] that was uploaded by an account, Klokus, in evasion of a block of a giant paid editing sockfarm, see [4]. The Klokus account was violating WP:EVASION, which directs that such material should be deleted. Another account, Sionk, has been re-linking to the material from the blocked account, Klokus. It appears that Sionk is inadvertently helping these paid editing efforts from the blocked editor. That is, I assume that Sionk has no connection to the sockfarm but is simply continuing its work. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You've simply removed it yet again from the article for no apparent reason. It is still on Wikipedia with no deletion request. It seems to have been legitimately uploaded. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sionk, please read this carefully. The reason for deleting the photo is that it was uploaded by Klokus in evasion of a block. This is following WP:EVASION, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Please do not say there is no reason; I have just given the policy-based reason. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I added the image here. I'm not blocked, I'm not a sock, I'm an experienced editor with an unblemished record. There's no reason to revert my edits based on COI or sockfarming. The image is freely available with a CC licence to be used for any purpose, anywhere. Sionk (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is completely false. The image was first uploaded and linked by Klokus on June 28. Here are the links [5] [6]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I even provided the diff above. Hardly false. Sionk (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

When you go to this page [7], does it say the upload on June 28 was by (1) Klokus or (2) Sionk? When I look, it says (1). Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Sionk, here's another deleted page by the same sockfarm: Etherial. Are you going to start working on restoring this material as well? Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I added the image back to this article, and Klokus uploaded the image to Wikipedia on behalf of Charles Corm Jnr, I agree. They're two different things, by degree, so let's explore them. There's the question of whether that image has a legitimate CC license or whether there's a reason it should be deleted. I'd say yes, it has a legitimate CC license backed up by an OTRS ticket. Anybody can use that image to illustrate anything on, or off Wikipedia. Nobody is going to delete that image anytime soon from Wikipedia. You seem to disagree with all of these premises. Secondly there's the question of whether the image is promotional in any way. It's a picture of a book cover, published in 1934. I can't see how that's promotional (the book's probably out of print anyway). On that basis I added it to the section of this article about Corm's books. If, alternatively, a COI editor had openly declared their COI and asked for the image to be added to the article by somebody else, would there have been a problem? I doubt it. I took the decision it wasn't a promotional image and added it back myself.

You even asked for a third opinion (below) but you decided you didn't like that opinion either because it didn't tally with yours. There comes a time when it has to be admitted your opnion is in the minority. Sionk (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sionk, so you finally admit that the image was added by a blocked editor. Hooray! That didn't take long :-). In addition you state that it is "legitimate," because, well, it is legitimate. That is circular. As you know, blocked editors are not allowed to edit the encyclopedia. I think I've mentioned that once or twice :-). Also, we have no idea if it has a legitimate CC license. You have no idea. Have you looked at the sockpuppet investigation yet [8] ? Yes or no? This editor, who has created more than 50 fake accounts, has repeatedly lied, deceived, and broken the rules of this encyclopedia. That is why she is blocked. So, again, we have no idea whether this image is legitimate. Chances are it's just part of the web of lies documented in [9] . Have you read that yet? There is a reason why we have a blocking policy here, and a reason why it is a bad idea for you to aggressively pursue the work of blocked editors. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Now you're putting words into my mouth again. The image has an OTRS ticket confirming its availability for general use. That is why I say it is legitimate. Sionk (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeking 3rd opinion on deleting content from blocked editor

I am putting this up for WP:3O. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the Third opinion request. The policy on WP:EVASION does state that edits by blocked editors can be reverted without further reason. It also states that such edits do not need to be reverted. So the question is simple: does the uploaded image bring benefits for the project? If so, don't delete it. If it violates copyright or has other problems, then there is grounds for deletion irrespective of who uploaded it. Keihatsu ^talk 02:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Great response! So, does it benefit the project to (1) allow a blocked editor to evade the block,(2) help an undisclosed paid editor do promotional editing--the picture is promoting the subject of the article, (3) look the other way as the Terms of Use [10] are violated? My answers would be no, no, no! Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You did ask for a second opinion. The editors have been blocked for their sockpuppeting activities, haven't they? The image in question was uploaded legitimately. The image isn't the problem. Sionk (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The image in question was not uploaded legitimately. It was uploaded by a sockpuppet in evasion of a block. This seems to be an extremely bad case of WP:IDHT. Please read the following, carefully. Klokus is a blocked sock. Now, have a look at this page User:Klokus. Note where it says "This account is a sock puppet of Newzealand123 and has been blocked indefinitely." Now look at this page: User:Newzealand123. Newzealand123 was blocked on May 14, 2014. The edits by Klokus, on Charles Corm, were on June 28, 2014. How could you possibly say that these are legitimate edits? Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

They were blocked for being a SOCK, not for uploading a legitimate image. You've continually failed to explain how adding two legitimate images is contrary to Wikipedia policy. They're not major editors here, the edits weren't promotional, there's not a problem. Sionk (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Once Newzealand123 was blocked on May 14, 2014, she was no longer allowed to make edits on Wikipedia, major or minor, text or image, no edits whatsoever. So please read this carefully: After May 14, Newzealand123 was not allowed to edit. That is the blocking policy, per WP:BLOCK. Now, here is the tricky part: Klokus and Newzealand123 are the same person. Understand? After May 14, no edits by Klokus are legitimate. None of them. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, first of all I shouldn't have to remind everyone to slow down on the reverting because that will lead to the article being locked for editing. Please refrain from making any edits that might cause a revert war, until we have some sort of consensus on what needs to be done. No more CAPS and no more "please read this" statements. Please also avoid separating off sections because this isn't helping things; since the request for third opinions has been made in this section, let's keep the discussion in one place.

From what I can see in these related sections, we essentially have two separate but related issues. Firstly are edits by a sock of a blocked editor. Secondly are edits that invlove being paid by outside persons. Now, Logical Cowboy, please present the issues clearly with diffs so we can all see exactly what has caused this dispute. Green Giant (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I've explained this clearly about 5 times already. This is a severe case of WP:IDHT by Sionk. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Enough please!

This perfectly fine article is turning into a battlefield and a place for personal vendettas! The recent edits of this article have totally destroyed it, swiftly deleting whole aspects of Corm's life let alone inserted wrong facts (as inserting the title "Architect" implying Corm was one). The definitive article on Charles Corm is Carla Henoud's full page biography of Charles Corm in Lebanon's leading newspaper, L'Orient-Le Jour, dated September 24, 2009 and titled "Charles Corm, le visionaire" = "Charles Corm, the visionary". As to the uploaded photo, it seems to be the EXACT same one as the former one approved by Wiki Commons (with just the white border removed). I trust nobody is foolish enough to start a debate over a white border! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.73.247 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Please read WP:OWN, you don't own this article, even when you pay someone else to edit it. Also, the discussion is not about the "white border" photo, it is about another photo that a paid editor, who is not allowed to edit on Wikipedia anymore because she broke the rules, inserted. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing by blocked editor Newzealand123

Note that according to WP:CHECKUSER, an editor of this page, Corm1234, is the same person as blocked editor Newzealand123. See User:Corm1234. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit by Newzealand123 dba Corm1234, reason: WP:EVASION. Blocked editors are not allowed to edit the encylopedia. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Of all the pictures

The current picture is, to put it in kind words, of very poor aesthetic quality. Can we replace it with this one File:CharlesCorm.jpg? -Elias Z 12:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)