User talk:MusicEditor1234: Difference between revisions
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Thanks |
Thanks |
||
Hello, I'm not John. But I have noticed your sudden wealth of objections to this article, which was created by several authors over several years, and has never received a complaint before, |
Hello, I'm not John. But I have noticed your sudden wealth of objections to this article, which was created by several authors over several years, and has never received a complaint before, after use by journalists and students. Today, out of the blue, you demand 20-30 extra citations, with the threat of it's removal. I'll be honest, this, coupled with the obtuse manner in which you descending on the article, would suggest something personal on your part. |
||
Or, can you explain why you chose to make so many alterations to an article this suddenly, when your user history suggests |
Or, can you explain why you chose to make so many alterations to an article this suddenly, when your user history suggests it's not your habit. Also, the manner in which you demanded the article be reviewed for removal. It seems strange. |
||
To state again, the article is |
To state again, the article is researched by several authors, and I think it has a good degree of journalistic neutrality when rereading it. It does not promote a company or organization, direct to other websites or products, and is reliant on information available to the public, and which a student or journalist would find useful. |
||
it would appear, that while citations and COI concerns are important |
it would appear, that while citations and COI concerns are important, your sudden burst of activity is simply meant to annoy, for personal reaons If you had sourced objections to add, of course that is what Wikileaks is about. |
||
Thanks to you. |
|||
==Your recent edits== |
==Your recent edits== |
||
Revision as of 01:32, 17 August 2017
Conflict of Interest
Hello John, I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks
Hello, I'm not John. But I have noticed your sudden wealth of objections to this article, which was created by several authors over several years, and has never received a complaint before, after use by journalists and students. Today, out of the blue, you demand 20-30 extra citations, with the threat of it's removal. I'll be honest, this, coupled with the obtuse manner in which you descending on the article, would suggest something personal on your part.
Or, can you explain why you chose to make so many alterations to an article this suddenly, when your user history suggests it's not your habit. Also, the manner in which you demanded the article be reviewed for removal. It seems strange.
To state again, the article is researched by several authors, and I think it has a good degree of journalistic neutrality when rereading it. It does not promote a company or organization, direct to other websites or products, and is reliant on information available to the public, and which a student or journalist would find useful.
it would appear, that while citations and COI concerns are important, your sudden burst of activity is simply meant to annoy, for personal reaons If you had sourced objections to add, of course that is what Wikileaks is about.
Thanks to you.
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.