User talk:Skyring

Please comment on Talk:State of Palestine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

For the sake of formality I need to post a warning here on your talk page, in regard to the following edits at Talk:Volkswagen emissions violations:

• [1] "cheating - leaving out the legal usage - is most commonly associated in contemporary culture with cheating in exams or cheating on a spouse. The latter doesn't really apply unless someone is really, really close to their Golf, but cheating on a test is also the wrong image. VW didn't falsify the results during the static tests: they were completely honest and accurate."
• [2] " I wouldn't be so tough on VW if I were you - this sort of behaviour is quite likely to be fairly widespread; VW isn't that much an innovator that they lead the pack in any area."
• [3] "For something to be illegal, there's got to be a law being broken. What's the law, in this case? "
• [4] "We can't use logic to source a statement that nobody has actually uttered. Do you have a source, or is that your best shot"
• [5] "Let's stick to policy, please, rather than using emotive language such as that above. "
• [6] "So instead of courts determining illegality, we have headline-writers. And instead of discussion, we have abuse. Right. Can you find me someone who said straight out what DB wants Wikipedia to say?"
• [7] "All the reasoning and synthesis doesn't make up for the lack of someone actually making the statement that DB wants us to make. If we can't link to a reliable source, then we can't claim something. "
• [8] "Come on, we're accusing a global brand of illegal behaviour. We really need a better authority than a journalist's opinion. "

Numerous sources have made totally clear that VW was utterly dishonest. Nobody asserts, as you did that they were in any way "completely honest and accurate." You claim that it's not illegal, no law has been broken, yet numerous sources were cited saying it was illegal and laws were broken. You were given specific sections of the legal code showing which laws were broken. You have cited zero sources saying no laws were broken. You accused others of making statements "nobody has actually uttered" even though you were shown many reliable sources who did in fact say it. You have twisted clear statements made in reliable sources in their own voice into "emotive language". You have repeatedly denied that anybody has "said straight out what DB wants Wikipedia to say" even when offered again and again numerous sources which do say it. Your assertion that we "can't link to a reliable source" is demonstrably false, yet you repeatedly make this same assertion. You have made clear that you are in denial about VW's actions. You think because they are a "global brand" that the must not have really done what they formally admitted to and which all reliable sources say they did.

You have presented novel theories of your own about VW and what it is likely to do or not do based on zero sources. The NYT has explained that in fact this is typical of how VW is run, according to experts. “The governance of Volkswagen was a breeding ground for scandal,” said Charles M. Elson, professor of finance and director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. “It was an accident waiting to happen.” Your baseless assumption that other companies did the same thing is contradicted by this NYT article. Yes, a degree of emissions rules violations is common, but this elaborate hoax, the deliberate evasion of testing on VW's part is almost unprecedented.

Wikipedia calls what you're doing Tendentious editing. Please cite any source that shares your opinions about this case. You've never once done so; you're making up explanations for these events out of whole cloth and expecting everyone else to edit around those made up explanations. If you had once cited a source which shares your novel ideas, your unique skepticism, then it could be argued that you are working to balance the article, seeking fair middle ground between differentiating points of view. But the second point of view has never been shown to exist outside of your own imagination. Tendentious editing, "carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." You need to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Second warning

You have continued to engage in posting false statements to push your point of view, failing to cite any sources to support it. Here you made the obviously false statement that the EPA merely did scientific investigation to "reveal" the truth, when you know full well they had to carry out a law-enforcement investigation to force VW to stop evading justice. Here you were presented with no less than 17 citations of reliable sources, and you falsely claimed that the use of "cheat" was mere "headline-writing". These are not merely headlines. You should know that. Please stop making these false statements and instead base your arguments on facts. Your behavior is a form of Disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong in your surmises, Dennis. Please stay off my talkpage with these uncivil accusations. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Third warning. You again posted demonstrably false statements, on the talk page, creating pointless argument. Again. To repeat here, as I linked to on the talk page, I gave two high quality sources showing that the EPA determines guilt in some civil violations autonomously. Even after I have repeatedly made this point, you have blithely denied it, saying, "it's up to the justice system to determine guilt"!

You cite nothing showing it's up to the justice system to determine guilt, even after you have been shown proof that a Notice of Violations is independent of the courts. Please stop your tendentious editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serbs of Croatia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbs of Croatia. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)