Talk:Nicholas Boothman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicholas Boothman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

NLP controversy

The neurolinguistic programming article makes it clear that NLP is a controversial technique that has often been labeled a pseudoscience. Although the full debate is beyond the scope of the Nicholas Boothman article, I have linked to the neurolinguistic programming article. The Nicholas Boothman article was itself written in a one-sided, highly promotional way--it resembled something that a paid editor would write. Per WP:DUE, I have briefly noted the controversy about NLP, citing no less than the National Academy of Sciences. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI

An editor of this article appears to be employed by the subject of this article. I can provide evidence (Elance link). Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OUTING, I am not posting the Elance link here. Any administrator should feel free to contact me and I will provide it. If the editor would really like me to post the link here with his name on it, please explicitly request on this page that you want me to post the Elance link here and that you waive all provisions of WP:OUTING. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! For this specific case, I waive all the provisions of WP:OUTING. Please post the link here. But unless the link is provided and unless anything is proved, you cannot tag articles without any purpose.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page on Elance listing your paid editing jobs [1]. This is the sockpuppet investigation where you were using multiple accounts for paid editing [2]. This is your latest job, $200 from Nick Boothman [3]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the job description? It does not say anything about a Wikipedia article, or even Wikipedia for that matter. The job description doesn't say anything about a biography or Nicholas for that matter. All the job says is that an article is needed. Mark Arsten, please look at the link above that LCB has posted and please remove the COI. LCB is saying that this link that he has posted shows that I have been paid for writing this article. Whereas, there is nothing on the links that goes to prove that.09:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I did not say that you were paid for writing this article. I said you are employed by the subject of this article. Your client, Nick Boothman, has posted two other jobs from that same Elance account, [4]. Here is the text of one of the ads [5]. "I need a quiz for a new site called isitreallove.com. I have schematic. Thanks Nick Boothman" The other ad starts like this [6] "Author of 3 best selling How to books looking for a researcher for my next book, How to be Lucky. See www.nicholasboothman.com." I think that your pattern of edits has been WP:DISRUPTive, e.g., you have removed the COI tag from this article three times despite the obvious COI. Your side business as a paid WP editor is taking up the time of members of this community. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad, you've gone quiet on this. Do you admit your COI on this article? Why, in this edit [7] did you say "This job is not from him, it is from another client"? Were you telling the truth? Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been paid to write this article, but I have worked with the guy on other projects. I read about him and I thought he deserved a Wikipedia page. As for that, I thought you were referring to the "Article 5" job in my Elance account - somehow when I clicked on the link in your message, the Article 5 job opened up. When I checked again, it was the other one. The COI page says that "when any external relationship undermines the primary role of a Wikipedian, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest", but in my case, my work with him didn't undermine my judgement. I created a perfectly neutral article.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the marketing crud you added. I am removing the tag but am going to watch this article carefully. SalvationP (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]