User talk:MusicEditor1234: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
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, 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.
Hello, I'm not John. But I have noticed your sudden wealth of objections to this article, which was created by several authors (which I am one) over several years, and has never received a complaint before to my knowledge. Today, out of the blue, you demand 20-30 extra citations, with the threat of it's removal. I'll be honest, this 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.
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 something you've done before? It seems more hostile than informative.


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.
To state again, the article is was put together by several, neutral authors, and I think it has a good degree of journalistic neutrality when rereading it. Others can disagree, but trying to have it removed in spite is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If there's something you think should be in it, and have sources or soemething, then have at it!


But regarding your flagging it for removal this way, it does not have COI issues to any great degree. It does not promote a company or organization, direct to other websites, and relies on information available to the public in news articles on websites all over the place, and which a student or journalist would find useful in one article. There were articles I used, in hindsight, that weren't on the internet to link to, but it doesn't seem anything controversial enough to see removal over.
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.

it would appear, that while citations and COI concerns are important, the sudden burst of activity from you is a bit mean spirited. If you have sourced objections to add or someting, then I think that's what Wikipedia is about, have at it.


Thanks to you.
Thanks to you.

Revision as of 01:45, 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 (which I am one) over several years, and has never received a complaint before to my knowledge. Today, out of the blue, you demand 20-30 extra citations, with the threat of it's removal. I'll be honest, this 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 something you've done before? It seems more hostile than informative.

To state again, the article is was put together by several, neutral authors, and I think it has a good degree of journalistic neutrality when rereading it. Others can disagree, but trying to have it removed in spite is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If there's something you think should be in it, and have sources or soemething, then have at it!

But regarding your flagging it for removal this way, it does not have COI issues to any great degree. It does not promote a company or organization, direct to other websites, and relies on information available to the public in news articles on websites all over the place, and which a student or journalist would find useful in one article. There were articles I used, in hindsight, that weren't on the internet to link to, but it doesn't seem anything controversial enough to see removal over.

it would appear, that while citations and COI concerns are important, the sudden burst of activity from you is a bit mean spirited. If you have sourced objections to add or someting, then I think that's what Wikipedia is about, have at it.

Thanks to you.

Your recent edits

Information icon 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:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. 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.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]