Talk:Conflict continuum

message: I posted an article yesterday (Conflict Continuum) that was immediately given the "wikify" tag; apparently there were not enough internal links in it to other Wikipedia pages. I've gone through it again and added a few links, but there really aren't that many references to people, places, and things suitable for linking. Have I wikified it enough to remove the tag?
Frank Rawland (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify?

message: As User:Amedea is the author of the theory and has edited the article, I have tagged as WP:COI. Widefox (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: References were added that show where the information came from.  The content did not change.  The original author of the article should have made the citations. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:COI e.g. "They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page" I am encouraging. Also, adding primary sources is not helping the notability at all. Is this article notable? Call for expert help. Widefox (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The history shows that the content was not written by (Amedea. If the added references are accurate then their presence in the article improves the article. Even if (Amedea is the author of the theory, which has not been established, adding references does not detract from the quality of the article. Since the original article author (Frank Rawland has not made a Wikipedia contribution in nearly three years, it seems silly to expect that that user and no one else should add references to the article. The COI tag seems a harsh overreaction that casts unwarranted aspersions on the content of the article. Is something else going on here to justify the COI tag? Perhaps offering a positive solution rather than a punitive tag would be more helpful? I now see a deletion tag has been added. This really seems punitive and uncalled for.ProfGiles (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually this has been established, which is why I've followed the guideline and asked for that to be posted here. The editor Amedea has claimed to be the author here . Please see the COI guideline, and detail any deviation from it, rather than making comments about other editors motives, which fails WP:AGF. Widefox (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only editor who had their motives questioned was Amedea. I certainly did not question yours, I asked for clarification. The adding of references does not violate the COI guideline, which is pretty obvious from the text of the guideline. As someone who was just passing by, this looks like a personal conflict between editors rather than a discussion of the merits or accuracy of the article. I asked for justification for the placement of COI and Deletion tags. A link to a nearly three year old comment on a user talk page doesn't, in my opinion, rise to that level. Why after nearly three years is this suddenly a burning issue? I don't have a dog in this personal conflict but it sure doesn't look good to see this type of thing on Wikipedia. I hope you two can resolve your conflict civilly. Peace. ProfGiles (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation on editors is off-topic, reply to this here ProfGiles. Widefox (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I see no controversy, and no drama. Please read COI, although COI is now moot - it is likely the article will be deleted as it fails notability anyway. The only way to save it is to add secondary sources. If you wish to keep it, please add them yourself, which is fine. Widefox (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: COI

message: I took the article to be about 'conflict continuum' as a model or concept to aid in the study and discussion of conflicts.
I have started constructing a new lead paragraph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ariconte/sandbox in the hope of converting this to a 'notable' article. Please comment here. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Andra Medea's book / model is not notable, and should not be included in any new article. Articles deleted should not be recreated in new forms. Widefox (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of article 

message: Added a link from Elise Boulding's bio page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elise_M._Boulding to this article. Would it be appropriate to link from the entry on Quakers?   Amedea (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If a link is appropriate in the Elise Boulding article; it should be an internal link in the text or in a See Also section. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   External links