User talk:Icerat/Archive 6
Amway - NPOV dispute
[edit]I regret to admit it but after this lengthy conversation I have come to a conclusion that no consensus regarding the inclusion or omission of the FTC case in the lead can be reached. Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have requested a dispute resolution process. I hope that the validity of arguments based on reliable sources will eventually win so that we can have an unbiased article both with cons and pros and vice versa. Best regards,--Historik75 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
[edit]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
March 2016
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Amway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- " Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war; it can be seen as aggressive. " --Icerat (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately aggression is the heart of the problem we are all having here, and I apologize. To be blunt, I seriously doubt a personalized message would've come across as any less aggressive, but if it does, then I'm giving you one now: Please stop, or you will get banned. If you really want to diffuse the situation, you need to step back from the brink and actually treat the other editors like people who may know what their talking about, even if you don't agree with them. You've come out of the gate swinging, but it seems like you are more interested in trying to tear down specific points in our arguments without ever addressing, or even understanding, our underlying concerns. Wikipedia isn't an adversarial system, it's based on WP:CONSENSUS. This Us vs. Them attitude is making progress impossible. If you want to improve the article, you need to remember that there are real people on the other sides of these screen. If you just want to promote Amway, well, you've made that abundantly clear, but I hope I don't have to tell that's not what Wikipedia is for. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but apology not accepted. It's you and RIR that need to stop your blanket deletion of text you disagree with, no matter how well sourced or accurate. You have made it abundantly clear that your idea of WP:Consensus is that editors have to agree with your perspective. I'm not interested in "promoting Amway", I'm interested in factual, accurate articles. Are you? This whole thing about not even wanting the fact Amway has been explictly cleared of being a pyramid scheme in the Lede makes it very clear what your position is, and it's not one based on facts. Tell me, Grayfell, how many RS sources on direct sales, MLM, Amway etc do you have sitting on your shelf there at home? I have dozens and dozens of them - the good, the bad, and the downright ugly - and I've been writing about the topic for more than a decade. If you want to be serious about improving Wikipedia then you need to make an effort to actually read the literature and understand what you're talking about, because right now, I'm sorry, but it's abundantly clear you don't have a clue. Furthermore, if you have an issue with sourced text that's been added and changed, then you need to make an effort to explain your concerns and ask questions on the talk page, not just delete stuff without even having properly read it or the sources. --Icerat (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. If you have a library of reliable sources, then you need to start presenting more of those reliable sources. I'm unimpressed with what you've been using so far. I don't really care how much of an expert you are, because Wikipedia is based on verifiability. I've been trying to raise my concerns, but you have only been responding selectively in a way that I feel misrepresents my statements, and fails to address the larger context. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Grayfell, I'm well aware of WP:V. I suspect the issue is if you can't google it you don't consider if WP:V. The "Amway Forever" book is a clear, independent RS, yet you deleted the text that was sourced to it, Company' self-published trade magazines are also considered RS for content about the company itself. Yet then you reject it not because of any issue with it as a source, but because of where a copy was hosted to aid WP:V- Bizarrely, this was the case even when it wasn't even used to support the article text, only in Talk! --Icerat (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. If you have a library of reliable sources, then you need to start presenting more of those reliable sources. I'm unimpressed with what you've been using so far. I don't really care how much of an expert you are, because Wikipedia is based on verifiability. I've been trying to raise my concerns, but you have only been responding selectively in a way that I feel misrepresents my statements, and fails to address the larger context. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but apology not accepted. It's you and RIR that need to stop your blanket deletion of text you disagree with, no matter how well sourced or accurate. You have made it abundantly clear that your idea of WP:Consensus is that editors have to agree with your perspective. I'm not interested in "promoting Amway", I'm interested in factual, accurate articles. Are you? This whole thing about not even wanting the fact Amway has been explictly cleared of being a pyramid scheme in the Lede makes it very clear what your position is, and it's not one based on facts. Tell me, Grayfell, how many RS sources on direct sales, MLM, Amway etc do you have sitting on your shelf there at home? I have dozens and dozens of them - the good, the bad, and the downright ugly - and I've been writing about the topic for more than a decade. If you want to be serious about improving Wikipedia then you need to make an effort to actually read the literature and understand what you're talking about, because right now, I'm sorry, but it's abundantly clear you don't have a clue. Furthermore, if you have an issue with sourced text that's been added and changed, then you need to make an effort to explain your concerns and ask questions on the talk page, not just delete stuff without even having properly read it or the sources. --Icerat (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately aggression is the heart of the problem we are all having here, and I apologize. To be blunt, I seriously doubt a personalized message would've come across as any less aggressive, but if it does, then I'm giving you one now: Please stop, or you will get banned. If you really want to diffuse the situation, you need to step back from the brink and actually treat the other editors like people who may know what their talking about, even if you don't agree with them. You've come out of the gate swinging, but it seems like you are more interested in trying to tear down specific points in our arguments without ever addressing, or even understanding, our underlying concerns. Wikipedia isn't an adversarial system, it's based on WP:CONSENSUS. This Us vs. Them attitude is making progress impossible. If you want to improve the article, you need to remember that there are real people on the other sides of these screen. If you just want to promote Amway, well, you've made that abundantly clear, but I hope I don't have to tell that's not what Wikipedia is for. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- " Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war; it can be seen as aggressive. " --Icerat (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't remove Amway Forever. I rephrased it to be less like PR speak, is that what you mean?[1] Obviously just because something is theoretically supportable doesn't mean that it belongs in the article. Readers are free to go to Amway's website if they want Amway's take on things, that's why Amway sources should be used with extreme caution. WP:NOTADVERTISING is one of the five core principle of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- (1)We've not mentioned an Amway sources, so why are you raising it? (2) On what basis do you think reverting to text from a well-known american anti-mlmer campaigner's newspaper opinion column in Sri lanka is better than from a third party book from a major publisher? --Icerat (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- You just said:
Company' self-published trade magazines are also considered RS for content about the company itself.
What on earth did you mean if not the Amway magazine you've been trying to use for the UK thing? If not that, then I have no idea what you're talking about, and we have other, more serious issues. I also just told you that I didn't think the columns it was better, I simply rephrased what it said. What is going on, here? Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)- The Amway trade magazine was never used as a source for the article, Grayfell. I never used it once in the article. I've pointed this out to you multiple times, I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp. You still haven't explained your justification for using a non-journalist columnist as a source. --Icerat (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, Icerat. The language of the proceedings certainly suggests a quasi-judicial forum. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Amway trade magazine was never used as a source for the article, Grayfell. I never used it once in the article. I've pointed this out to you multiple times, I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp. You still haven't explained your justification for using a non-journalist columnist as a source. --Icerat (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- You just said:
Steve Hassan bio
[edit]I have requested two edits at the Steve Hassan bio.
1. Regarding a claim that is not reliably sourced.
2. Regarding self-published books that are not identified as self-published.
Would you please review these edits and perhaps implement them?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, been busy. I'll have a look later this week.--Icerat (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Icerat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)