User talk:Adjwilley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Adjwilley — User talk — Contributions — Email  
Picture of the day
Julie Delpy

Julie Delpy (born 1969) is a French-American actress and film director. In 1990 she found success with Europa Europa, portraying a pro-Nazi girl who falls in love with a youth she does not know is Jewish. Shortly afterwards Delpy moved to the United States, acting in Hollywood productions such as Before Sunrise and An American Werewolf in Paris and studying filmmaking at the Tisch School of the Arts. This picture was taken in 1991.

Photograph: Fabrice Lévêque
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

IMPORTANT: A last short needed look[edit]

Please see possible "closing arguments" here, [1]. Settling this there, n that way, would end the issues raised in inordinate length earlier. Consider a final persuasive comment, on any matter you wish? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

COI Question[edit]

Hey Adjwilley,
I hope all is well. I wanted to get an independent opinion, whenever you have a chance to offer one. There is one editor User:McGeddon- and they are quite affable and reasonable in most regards - but for some reason they are convinced that I should be tagged as a COI on the Brahma Kumaris article, and they are relying on this new editor for their support (the one from ANI).
I thought of you because at least you have been around since that somewhat 'interesting' editor got banned last year, and John Carter gave all the RS for me to start adding content. I think I've edited in a very fair minded way. The article is more readable, professional and on par with other encyclopaedia's. But perhaps because of being a major contributor to content I have developed a blindspot or some ownership??? I wasn't watching the page for the first half of 2014, until some of the photo's i uploaded got deleted (my mistakes/misunderstanding in licensing)...anyway...
No one is identifying the text that is meant to be offending policies/guidelines, so the talk page is all puffery and there is no editing/content focus (except the repeated mass deletions by User:Truth_is_the_only_religion). To McGeddon's credit he raised a COIN But it was very loaded and made no mention of the fact that I was making legitimate reverts under WP:BANREVERT, to some very questionable bulk deletions by User:Truth_is_the_only_religion. Even though the loaded COIN didn't get any comment, McGeddon inserted COI tags without consensus. I have already reverted the tags a couple of times, but again they are back, with WP:Advert in addition. Given the second COIN (still misleading, but scaled back) also got no support, it really would help to get an independent opinion. For the 'Advert' tag, someone needs to be bold enough to identify the specific content alleged to be "promotional content" - at the moment it seems more likely that because some of the beliefs and activities are 'positive' then editors aren't checking RS to realise this content is fully supported and instead think it's 'advertising'. That's not what this tag is about. Given the history of this article and the page stalkers I personally took a lot of care when adding content. I'm really interested to get practical feedback, but so far there is just skepticism, suspicion and assumptions. On reflection, this isn't the most appealing invitation...but would really help. There is room to improve the article too, which would be a good outcome from the current activity. Danh108 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
My problem here is that User:Danh108 works as a volunteer for the Brahma Kumaris group, and per WP:COS is "advised to refrain from editing those articles directly". But the articles' histories suggests that they have been largely written and maintained by Danh108. --McGeddon (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The bigger problem is that all 3 BK followers are working as a sort of hive mind or team, therefore it is false to speak of them as having more than one opinion. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

...for closing that mess. I hope editors will heed your sound advice to let it go. I can't imagine anything to be gained from more "hearings" into the matter. 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Cooking the books[edit]

The discussion was running 3:1 in favor of reversing the unblock when you closed the discussion by merging votes before and after the reblock into one discussion and then reimposed an early close you had made. You disagree with my strategies? It's hard to describe how much I disagree with yours. If admins won't respect blocks, they are meaningless.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The merge was fine. I'd made my opinion clear and would have commented again if I hadn't been asleep. By the way, Sitush has emailed me and assured me it was purely figurative, no threat intended. And I don't for a minute think Demiurge felt threatened (and he didn't comment when I asked him if he did). As for Admins respecting blocks, one of the main criticisms of us is that we simply join ranks if someone is blocked. I don't think that's true, but I also don't think that we need to accept that every block needs to be respected. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
And there is now User talk:Sitush#Explanation. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that every block is absolute, Dougweller, I'm saying that there needs to be a consensus to override another administrator's action when that administrator objects. Closing a discussion when it is clearly trending against a preferred position is also problematic, and merging the discussion of whether an action is appropriate with discussion that occurred before the action was taken is also problematic. How can discussion that occurred before Floquenbeam's unblock be relevant to whether that unblock was appropriate? The issue at that point was not whether the original block against Sitush was appropriate (I tend to think it was a bit of an overkill), but whether Floquenbeam could unilaterally override another admin when discussion had not shown a consensus that such an override was appropriate.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok. It's moot now, and I doubt very much that if it had run on there would have been a consensus to reblock (eg I and others who didn't participate in that discussion would have probably not supported a reblock). But I'm glad you've clarified your position. That was a bad block (particularly as it was indefinite, if it had been for 24 hours maybe no one would have cared). And you probably underestimate the amount of on and off-Wiki harassment Sitush is having. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@KWW, I think there are two or three things at issue here, and talking about them as if they were one is going to be problematic.
  • First is the question of whether Sitush should have been re-blocked for his outburst. I think we can agree that a second indef block would have been far out of proportion with the magnitude of Sitush's crime.
  • Second, and I think this one is your primary concern, is whether someone like Floquenbeam should be able to unilaterally revert another admin without consensus. I think it's important to separate this issue from the first because of the highly charged emotional undercurrent at ANI. To the very end we had people calling for blood because they incorrectly assumed that Sitush had actually threatened to shoot someone. (See for instance any comment by Baseball Bugs.) If you want an answer to the question of whether it's ok for one admin to unilaterally revert another, you're not going to get a fair answer if you ask the crowd, "Is it right for one admin to unilaterally unblock somebody who made a death threat?"

    As for my view on the question, I think that it is ok sometimes, and I found Floq's comparison to BRD here compelling. To get a real answer to that question though you're going to have to decouple it from Sitush and probably take it to ArbCom.

  • Third, regarding "cooking the books" by merging the two sections, when I made my count that I used for the close there were 11 in the 2nd section who favored reblocking and 5 who opposed. (I think 1 or 2 may have voted later in an edit conflict.) 3 of the 11 (Mendaliv, Tarc, and Chillum) had already expressed their opinion in the 1st section, and 1 of the 5 (LHM) as well. Another of the 5 (Serialjoepsycho) had switched sides. The numbers in the first section (roughly 19:13 favoring some sort of modification to the block length) were more substantial and I don't think it would have been fair to simply throw them away. Really though it wasn't about the numbers, especially since probably over half the people who commented weren't able to read Sitush's post. The reasons for a re-block were weak, and I think many of the cooler heads who could have commmented had moved on after Floq's stinging comment about those "who live for long stupid arguments".
Anyway, I've got to go to work now, and probably won't be able to respond to anything else for the next several hours at least. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I should also apologize for my hardball revert of your un-close. It was nothing personal; I just felt strongly that putting a lid on that pot would be the best thing for the encyclopedia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for keeping an eye and fixing bits of the BKWSU article. This article has for long suffered attack from block evading editors or have taken more of advertising tint. Experienced editors like yours getting involved can get this resolved for long term. I hope you are able to spend some time over next few weeks to get this to a stable version. Changeisconstant (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you, willing gnome with a scientific background and the absolute pitch for controversy, for improving Beatitudes and nourishing Dies irae in your sandbox, for a smile-provoking user page, for "most of the edits are related to these controversial issues" and "asking people questions until he can understand their point of view", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt, that is very kind of you. I'm surprised you found the absolute pitch bit, as it's been off my userpage for a while now. Also, re: the season, I didn't realize that October was "a thing". I seem to remember something around Christmas a while back where it seemed like half the admins were drunk. Anyway, thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Tis the season, tolling the bell on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for ending the amusing/threatening trolling, - I would have given you Precious for that, but do it only once ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

'Tis the season, indeed[edit]

Scottperry made these false allegations on Jimbo Wales talk page. When I asked him to strike his comment with an apology this exchange occurred. I went to Jimbo Wales page and struck the allegations myself. Knowledgekid87 then reverted me. I give up. Would you mind striking Scottperry's false allegations? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo had asked you not to post on his talkpage which you went against, I see you had addressed this issue with Scott here already and took it upon yourself to strike out a comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Why would you reinsert false allegations? I struck the allegations myself because Scott seemed too confused to sort the matter out himself. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What you could have done is approach Adjwilley first for some advice rather than striking out a comment from a talkpage you are barred from. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2
@Epipelagic, I'm generally not a fan of striking, especially striking others' comments. I've added a comment of my own that hopefully clarifies the issue.
@Knowledgekid87, Except for the striking, Epipelagic didn't make any posts to Jimbo's page after Jimbo asked him to stop. It's a bit confusing with the way it's threaded and with Jimbo asking twice, but if you look at the dates... ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Im talking about the striking, anyways this whole thing looks like a misunderstanding I would let it go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that's the best course of action from here. Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Adjwilley. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 04:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Reverts[edit]

You're changing the facts and history to fit your narrative. The only reverts I have performed are of yours, not two other users. Those were expansions of the information I made.

You're the one starting this revert wrestling match and then claiming that I'm doing this. Please stop. The information that I have put in the article is relevant, factual, cited and adds context to the paragraph. Taking it out makes the article worse. Villaged (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Villaged: Please see Wikipedia:Reverting#What is a reversion? for the definition of a revert. (It's still a revert, even if you don't use the "undo" button.) Thanks for starting the thread on the discussion page, I've replied there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing of Talk discussion by involved editor[edit]

I'm addressing this query to you because you're the last administrator I had an interaction with. RGloucester has twice closed a discussion he was involved in. I reverted his first closure with the comment "involved editors do not close discussions". He went ahead and closed it again anyway, with the edit summary "WP:IAR, and anyway, this isn't a discussion. This is nonsense". This appears to be a blatant violation of the rule that uninvolved editors should not close discussions. WP:IAR states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." How does closing a Talk section he doesn't like help RGlouscester "improve or maintain Wikipedia"? RGloucester has very strong feelings about the Ukraine crisis, and openly expresses contempt for the rebels, calling them "right wing nuts". (Probably not an exact quote; I don't think it's worth finding the comment I have in mind.) I have pointed out to him several times before that his view is unreasonable. So what I did in this Talk section is contradict his view, in effect saying that it is the people behind the central government, not the rebels, who are the real right wingers here. So he called this "nonsense" and closed the discussion. Since when is something published by Foreign Policy and The Guardian, the two sources I quoted from in my last post, "nonsense"?

The situation is exacerbated by someone replying to my comment after RGloucester had closed the discussion the second time, thus "getting the last word in". So it really looks to me like there is a problem here. But if you don't see one, I can live with that, and won't take the matter any further. – Herzen (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) I guess I didn't explain why I turned to you. Would it be all right for me to reopen the discussion? – Herzen (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. That discussion is laden with personal analysis that has nothing to do with the article. I was absolutely right in closing it. I find it odd that you thanked me (yes, there is a log of thanks) for closing a similar discussion at the War in Donbass talk page. Perhaps you only like forum-ish discussions closed if they are not going your way? RGloucester 20:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but your equating those two very different discussions indicates a battleground attitude. As far as I can tell, this discussion that you closed twice, even though you were highly involved in it, was not going your way. I didn't care which way the other discussion was going. I thought the other discussion was pointless; I wanted it to be closed to prevent people from wasting more time. And the discussion you closed now has everything to do with the article: the reason there is "unrest" is not because some people are "pro-Russian", as the article's title claims, but something else. – Herzen (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the title of article, you can do that in a new section. The discussion had nothing to do with the article's title, and went far into off-topic OR land. RGloucester 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit ambivalent about involved closings. If a close is good and nobody objects it can be a very good thing. If there are strong objections then trying to force a close can sometimes be worse than simply letting the discussion fizzle out on its own. I'm a big fan of WP:IAR, but if somebody reverts me I don't use IAR to revert them back. I've interpret IAR as "Don't let the rules/bureaucracy get in the way of common sense" but if there's strong disagreement with an IAR action I take then I don't invoke it again because apparently my "sense" isn't "common" enough and it's time to go back to rules.

    I'm not familiar with all the details of the discussion, but it looks like there's a lot of disagreement and a lot of arguments being made that aren't convincing anybody. @Herzen, perhaps the best path forward for you would be to read what RGloucester and VolunteerMarek have said in response to your comments, try to see things from their point of view, start a new section with new arguments that take into account the previous objections, and then do everything you can to keep things on topic. Also, realize that you're going to have to settle with a compromise, so try to think of what things you will need to give up in order to achieve that. @RGloucester, I expect you will also make an effort to see things from the other point of view and work to find a way to resolve this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response and feedback. I take you to have explained that my reverting RGloucester's closure a second time is allowable, even though the article is under discretionary sanctions. However, since some editors are so heavily invested in backing one side in this civil war that they are unwilling to subject their preconceptions about it to scrutiny, there is no point in reopening the discussion. – Herzen (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There isn't anything to resolve, as none of the discussion had anything to do with the article. I have no objections to anything, other than to making talk pages a forum for discussing whether Ukraine is or isn't facist. That has no relevance to the article, whatsoever, and is entirely inappropriate. The only appropriate resolution is to close the discussion as off-topic, and proceed with business as usual. This is what I did, and hence, God will favour me in his judgement. RGloucester 01:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You claim to have academic training. Given that, I really don't see how you can make the patently false claim that the nature of the regime that was installed in February has no relevance to what the title of the article should be. – Herzen (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

SPA on Talk:Joseph Smith[edit]

I don't know if we need to do anything about this. You seem to have a far better handle on the history and background of this issue than I do. The user hasn't made any edits to content, just that one to the discussion. It looks like an obvious vote stack. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed that as well. I can't tell if it's socks or meat, but something definitely smells. ~Adjwilley (talk)
Worth keeping an eye on. I can definitely see where the users are coming from in that discussion, but it largely seems a bit singleminded, which is not good. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I did some more sniffing and I'm 99% convinced that Owtc is a sock, and about 75% convinced that they're a sock of Villaged. I filed a report...we'll see what comes of it. I always have trouble knowing the best way of doing things when people show up with an axe to grind. The past couple of times I've tried to skip some of the back and forth and jump straight to the standard compromise, but sometimes it seems like they just take that middle ground and keep on pushing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I hear you—ultimately, I don't think this particular issue is that big of a deal, but I think the tone has been kind of unfortunate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Adjwilley. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock[edit]

Is User:I'm your Grandma. really a new editor? It is the editor's first day and having no prior contact with him/her I have received two bits of questioning on an arbcom page which is all they are doing there (responding to me). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Hopefully my feeling of de ja vu is wrong. I left a message. Not a typical situation. Dennis - 03:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay thanks, I don't like to accuse other editors but the whole thing seemed off to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I'll keep an eye on them and if they start stirring up drama... ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • If they do, they will duck in a corner, do a change of clothes, then walk past you without you noticing. We are too strict with CUs, by a large measure. Dennis - 16:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello Adjwilley. I was disappointed to see you make this comment to Steeletrap [2] at Arbcom Decision talk. First, it's off topic for that page, which is intended to support the arbiters in evaluating the proposed findings and decision as presented. See also [3].

Equally as important, it's likely that many readers will see it as a denigration of @Steeletrap:, a rather sensitive woman editor, who faced quite a bit of gender-related hazing, especially as a newbie in 2013, and who appears to have been all but driven off the Project by the hostility she's encountered. On a personal note, it also reminds me of your failure to stem the tide of conflict in 2013, which escalated under your attempted stewardship. You now have more experience in your Admin role, and you may well be doing better these days. Still, I was saddened to see such a pointless and gratuitous remark on Steeletrap's thread at Arbcom. Perhaps you'll consider striking it. No need to reply. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Unc" Willey is well-intentioned. I'm glad we've been able to get some distance from the debates of last year. I actually intend to step up my contributions to WP in the coming weeks; a family member has required my assistance for the last few months. I am also happy to see that my allegedly "biased contributions" have been overwhelmingly retained since my topic ban. I expect the ArbCom will restore my editing privileges once the required 12 months has passed. Steeletrap (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Would you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lifting_0RR_restriction? To me it seems like everything has been cleared up but the lack of research by other users who are making comment is becoming the cause of repetitive discussion. Can you clarify there, that how John had the authority to impose, like one has asked? You had once clarified on Talk:Ayurveda[4]. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

MH17 article[edit]

Hello, you warned me about my engaging in a slow edit war here, so since the same problem has arisen yet again, I am writing to you in order to get advice as to how to proceed.

The obvious SPA Tlsandy has yet again deleted a passage which brings a semblance of NPOV to the article in question. Here is what he deleted with this edit:

He also explained that investigators initially considered four scenarios: "An accident, a terrorist act, downing by a surface-to-air missile, or an attack from another airplane. After the release of the DSB preliminary report the accident and terror scenarios were eliminated. The two others remain."

The edit summary Tlsandy gave was "Previous sentence covers this redundant sentence." The previous sentence is "In an interview with Der Spiegel, the chief Dutch MH17 prosecutor, Fred Westerbeke, said that MH17 was most likely shot down by a surface to air missile." I hope you will agree with me that Tlsandy's claim that the passage he deleted is redundant is absurd.

I will explain the context for this long-standing content dispute in this article. This matter has been gone over endlessly in the Talk page. The article as it stands is egregiously POV-pushing the idea that there is only one possibility as to who shot MH17 down: the rebels who do not accept the legitimacy of the Ukrainian central government. The article as it stands is swamped by rambling narratives based on hearsay and recitation of what has appeared on social media. When it comes to authoritative sources about what happened to MH17, there are only two: a technical investigation about why the plane crashed, and a criminal investigation about who shot it down. Both of these investigations leave open two possibilities: either MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile, or it was shot down by a fighter jet. That these two possibilities exist is well documented by reliable Western sources. However, involved editors want to maintain the fantasy that there is only one possibility. Hence, all the edit wars.

I understand that it is difficult for administrators to become apprised of the details of a content dispute, but the case here is really very simple. Some editors continually push the POV that who shot MH17 down is an open and shut case (thus violating one of the five pillars: Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view, as opposed to revealing "the truth"), whereas reliable sources make clear that who shot down MH17 is yet to be determined. – Herzen (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The editors who believe they own the article have started another edit war, with this edit. The edit summary says "or just get rid of that paragraph altogether again, as per this talk", but that Talk section never made a coherent case for the deletion of the passage in question, and Stickee, who started that earlier edit war by tag teaming with My very best wishes, has now started this new edit war, by rejecting your compromise. I don't want to get into trouble, so I am not going to revert this edit, but instead turn to you again for assistance and guidance. – Herzen (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No less than 6 editors have argued why that passage should not continue to be added ([5], [6]/[7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). Just because you may not agree with the arguments presented doesn't mean there was no case made. Stickee (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No valid argument was made for why the passage in question should be removed. Here is what My very best wishes wrote: "I still believe these insignificant details of ongoing investigation should be removed per WP:recentism. And I think they will certainly be removed sooner or later by someone", which you followed with "Yep I've done this now." I rebutted in that Talk section the idea that recentism is involved: the investigation eliminating two scenarios was a turning point and will always be a turning point. And it doesn't matter if six editors deny this obvious point or thousands do. Also, note that My very best wishes wrote that the passage "will certainly be removed sooner or later by someone", a clear indication that the program was to use the power of numbers, tag teaming, and a war of attrition, as opposed to rational arguments. The downing of MH17 was a criminal act, and criminal acts are resolved by criminal investigations, not social media and blogs. So the criminal investigation is of central importance to this article, as is the progress it has made. To deny this is for editors who believe they know the truth to insult the intelligence of other editors. – Herzen (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen. You and USchick are making a lot of unsubstantiated accusations around here. If you believe there is a problem, report it to WP:AE. If not, do not comment about other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please review diff[edit]

See diff. You are the first person to propose improvements for the text. It is much appreciated. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I don't know the subject very well, but based on what I read from your source I would write something more concise like the following: "A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws..." Just drop the link to political agenda and unlink the words websites, social media, and marketing. (Those are very common words; see WP:OVERLINK.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the wikilinks. So far it is being rejected with reasons that are concerning to me. For example, an editor wrote in part: "Per WP:RS/MC a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims." The review is clearly reliable but editors think it is not a reliable source for the claim. I don't think that argument is based on WP:PAG. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Pine cone on pine tree.jpg Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness to you and all your loved ones from ```Buster Seven Talk 21:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)