Talk:Simon Moores

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have submitted this page as copyright holder. All Zentelligence and listed material under Simon Moores is held under a creative common license recorded at CreativeCommons.org --DrMoores 15:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See license at Creative Commons Link

By submitting your work you have released it under the GFDL (see the copyright notes under the Save Page button.)--Duk 19:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes understood so can we dispense with the warning message on the page which makes it all rather untidy?

[edit] Content Questions

I feel it is important to document the changes I have made and why. I spent a while rereading the Wikipedia guidelines to be sure before I acted but am willing to stand corrected. I am not going to add content as I feel I am "too close to the topic" at present. I am aware, for example, that there were a large number of templates to choose from and I am no expert editor. As such the input of other neutral editors would be very helpful.

  • I have removed links that do not appear to be notable. One appeared to me to be an advert.
  • I am contesting the entire article due to lack of citation as it appears to be autobiographical (written by the subject) and therefore unlikely to have a NPOV.
  • I have also made one or to minor corrections.

--Lord Matt (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit directly with editorial direction however I would like to raise the notability issue on the links used within this article. Specifically the Airads link which while factual could potentially be considered an advert. However I do not feel that I can suitably make this judgment call without cries of foul-play by someone as I blog extensively about the area where Dr Moores is a District Councilor and so would rather leave things in the hands of a neutral third party. --Lord Matt (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Lord Matt has a distinct and very personal and political local agenda of his own. As a consequence his opinions might be best ignored as simply mischevious. At worst, they may be considered prejudicial. It is interesting to see that he has removed a reference to a weblog which has opinions that he has been vociferous in challenging.

The detail found here is historically and factually correct and can in itself be easily researched.

--Simon Moores —Preceding comment was added at 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Simon. Why do you think I am seeking neutral opinion? Now let's try to remain civil at least here, hmm. --Lord Matt (talk) 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And who would you like to see confirm this Matt? A past colleague from the Cabinet Office, The Shadow Home Secretary, the head of the Serious & Organised Crime Agency, our local MP? Let's be clear about your local political agenda in this matter. --Simon Moores —Preceding comment was added at 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to assume Good Faith and act with it too within the Guidelines of "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers" but personal slights are not an acceptable way to carry on and my political views are not a subject for this talk page. If you think me notable then you might wish to attempt to start an article on "me" where it may or may not be a subject for discussion. I am widely mentioned on sites across the web where my successes as well as my failures are publicly available to anyone with internet access and the use of a good search engine.
For reasons I have outlined and you have confirmed I have tried to avoid changing the content of the article about you beyond matters of style and formatting. This is in line with the "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest" guidelines.
If you have trouble understanding the methodology of Wikipedia I will refer you to some specific guidelines "Wikipedia:Manual of Style", "Wikipedia:Biographies of living people" and "Wikipedia:Autobiography" as well as the others I have linked to. These seem most pertinent although if you have several hours to spare you could always read the entire collection satire items and all.
You can access a list of such policies from the "Wikipedia:List of policies" page. In line with these policies I have sought the advice and participation of other editors that do not suffer a conflict of interests. If you feel you have been unfairly treated or a dispute arises which can not be reasonable settled I would direct your attention to "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" where assisted dispute resolution can be requested.
In a nutshell, however, Wikipedia requires that all articles have and cite suitably reliable sources and that all content have a certain level of significance. There is a rule of thumb known as NPOV - Neutral Point of View - which is required for all articles. You, me, members of your party, the people in the roles you have listed, my friends, your friends or anyone else with a vested interest are not, by the definition of NPOV, suitable editors for this article. Much as it might surprise you I am trying to help you.
When it comes to resolution by law, something I know you are keen on, the Wikipedia will follow Florida based laws therefore you might be interested in reviewing "Privacy laws in the United States" if you feel that information presented here is specifically invasive.
Users are generally considered free, within the boundaries of good taste and law, to write as they please without citation on their user pages. On your own user page there would be no need to cite sources as it is assumed that you are the source. However, user pages are generally not a suitable source of information for an entry.
I hope this clears things up for you.
--Lord Matt (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Having known Simon Moores and his work in the IT industry for twenty years, I've made some edits, changes, corrections and additions which should keep everyone happy. --Iain Janes —Preceding comment was added at 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all a good start, I am sure, but generally Wikipedia likes to see citations of primary (and secondary) sources. Encyclopedias are, as I am sure everyone is aware, considered to be a tertiary source. A distillation, if you like, of the works of others so that original research and first hand reporting are not suitable. If it's all true then there should be plenty of independents sources (books, periodicals, websites and etc) just waiting to be linked to. If not... --Lord Matt (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed an unusual number of citation 'flags', where they appear to serve no immediate purpose and the references can be found elsewhere. I plan to revisit and tidy these in the future but the page now appears less 'messy'. --Iain Janes --Inhjanes (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit primerily for style

My edits should not be taken as anything other than style edits (mostly spacing quotes and formatting). I am still concerned that some of the material here is lacking notability suitable for a wikipedia entry and I would very much like to see some supporting evidence for the article. It still reads like a CV to me.

One concession to content I made was adding a little more reference to the March of Spiders which I duplicated from the Copyright article.

As a Wikipedia page this article was not doing so well. I have moved all or most external links to references where they seem to support the text or external links where the root domain was linked to and I have wikilinked any topic or phase that seemed significant from context. It now plays more nicely with the other pages but I am far from happy to it

This article is still quite far from being in line with the manual of style (WP:MOS). I am not happy with the style of the write up specifically that the use of the word "and" makes the text hard to read and the voice too passive. I am not going to edit beyond style as I have already indicated (and Simon has already backed me up in my statement) that I am not a very suitable editor to add content to this article.

Where I did not see a reference that I would have expected to find one I used the appropriate template until the page seemed to be peppered with citation needed links to the point I more or less gave up. All of the content and more might be God's own truth but an encyclopedia needs sources being a start point for research not an end point.

I am not so much disputing the authorship of "Using Lotus 1-2-3 Release 3.0" but rather observing that it is not correctly referenced or linked as in Wikipedia guidelines.

March of the Spiders: having looked at the pdf of this report I found no direct reference to Simon Moores as author even though it listed as such in the Copyright article. Therefore an authority citation is still needed even if this is just to the page where it is explicitly mentioned.

I would like to see an objective third party write up of claims that Simon Moores family was threatened and business reputation threatened (?) resulting in the second termination of all activity on that blog. Any editor wanting to research this might want to look outside of Google as all I could find were local blogs talking about it while I know the press have also picked up on it.

--Lord Matt (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

As has been explained at some length now by all parties there is seriouse conflict of interest arround this artical. I'm not to fond of the fact that the subject wrote large portions and the subject is not to fond of the idea that I might edit them. This is probably normal as we live within five miles of each other, both blog on similar topics and both work in a similar niche. I think the word rivals might be used albeit erroniousely.

I would like to see the article edited to improve readability, to remove bias and resotre NPOV and I would like to see citations for all assertaions.

I think it might be suitable to indicate where, when and in what that Moores holds a doctorate. I have yet to research this to find a source.

I would like to see coverage the contriversy whereby Moores family were alledgedly threatened in a blogging incident and where Moores felt that the personal attacks were too much. This was covered in reginal papers as well as by Moores in his blog as well is a number of article published on silicon.com [1][2]. Many in that blogging niche have been critical of this where as the papers have been accused of repeating his words without analysi, although not all and other blogs were shut in sympathy [3][4][5]. The problem here is that blogs are widely seen as not always suitble for use in wikipeida. Add to that the conflict of interest issues and there is no way I will write the article yet nor should any other local or politically alligned person.

I feel that Arabgov.com (now redirecting to a blank blogspot page) might warrent a mention.

According to e-crimecongress.org Moores is the Programme Director of the e-crime congress [6]. I think this should be mentioned.

On links: I am worried that not all links are significant and that all significant links are not included. drmoores.com (linked to in the article) redirects to http://www.zentelligence.blogspot.com/ which should perhaps be the URL used. There is a profile page for each member of the council (of which Moores is an elected member) [7] that might be significant.

I would also like input on the use of: Template:Activepolitician and Template:BLPsources

--Lord Matt (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

--Simon Moores

What we appear to have here is a fascinating exercise from one individual who appears to be energetically attempting to draw attention to his own weblog and a local interest story that remains so, only as local political interest to Lord Matt.

I'm quite sure that Wikipedia readers are intelligent enough to judge what is taking place here for themselves and indeed, the character of Lord Matt, through both the direction of his morbid interest and quality of his spelling! I doubt that any antagonism from Lord Matt (Matt Brown of Margate), towards one of his local Conservative councillors is truly of great interest to the Wikipedia readership but I do expect to see this comment re-published in an attempt to increase weblog traffic elsewhere.

Should anyone wish to add the citation, "Using Lotus 123" is ISBN 013540501. "March of the Spiders" - Policy Challenges for Copyright in the Digital Publishing Environment can be found on the web and was used as submission to the European Parliament in its most recent review of the the legislation. You might like to read it here http://zentelligence.blogspot.com/March%20of%20the%20Spiders.pdf or indeed, visit the Conservative Technology Forum website at www.conservative-technology.org. You can find comment on the work at http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39127299,00.htm and also the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/4347839.stm.

I'm a little too busy at present to run through and offer similar, detailed. citations for everything I might have ever done or written and I think you might find that very few similar biographies on Wikipedia demonstrate the level of granular detail that Matt Brown appears to demand of my entry. I haven't provided a citation for actually existing nor indeed for my work for and with the media, although you will find a clip or two on the BBC website. In fact it's not important, as the agencies, governments and individuals I work with on a regular basis, know who I am and what I do, regardless of the 'helpful' input provided by Lord Matt of Margate.

The ArabGov.com website appears to be suffering from a re-direction problem. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Otherwise, have fun with the continued effort to "edit" this entry. I'm sure everyone is very grateful for such conscientious attention to Wikipedia detail.

--Simon Moores —Preceding comment was added at 13:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the second time I will ask you to stop the personal attacks, Simon, not to mention the publication of the personal details of others. Let us at least attempt to act as adults and not say anything here we might not be very happy to say in person. You have (apparently) been the victim of on line bullying but do not also become the bully. Thank you. --Lord Matt (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the helpme template, as the RFC has already been posted and is sufficient to draw in additional editors. If you need help with something else on Wikipedia, please place the template on your user talk page. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Thank you for your time, Hersfold. --Lord Matt (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In contrast for the sudden enthusiasm for citation on this web page, you might wish to look at the entry for my former boss Andrew Pinder, or indeed many other similar entries on Wikipedia which don't appear to enjoy the same standard of citation demanded here. However, any keen editor with a great deal time to kill or suffering from chronic insomina, should very simply be able to tie-up a great many web supporting references simply by "Googling" Simon Moores. Good Luck!

--Simon Moores DrMoores 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

From RfC: This may be a candidate for AfD. There is no reliable assertion of notability, few reliable references, and most of the information is unverifiable. The fact that this article is a resume and an autobiography doesn't help of course. —BradV 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, this article reading as a resume-like bio does no help. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if you are uncomfortable with the content of this page that you simply remove it. I find your concern over the the so-called "unveriafiable" aspect of the content risible after 30 very interesting years in the IT industry. So please delete the lot, it's only a small matter of interest. There was a world of technology before the internet existed and indeed even Wikipedia too. Thank you! DrMoores 13:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmoores (talk • contribs)