- 1 Speed deletion of the Multibionta Wikipedia page (guidance and revisions required to repost)
- 2 Edits made to Natural World Museam
- 3 AfD nomination of HairMax LaserComb
- 4 Pure wiki deletion, redux
- 5 A question about your edit of the Kinetic Bombardment in fiction page
- 6 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 7 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 8 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Speed deletion of the Multibionta Wikipedia page (guidance and revisions required to repost)
I have a few question regarding the speed deletion of the Multibionta Wiki page. Firstly, I understand the points that were provided regarding the "Marketing campaigns" subheading and links. I actually agree with these items for removal as it does seem like product promotion. I really want you to know that this was not the intent. I developed this page as a result of a a digital coupon found online and numerous questions posted by interested viewers. That said, the Multibionta page's intent is to provide an unbiased look at what Multibionta exactly is, how it works, and some scientific data on multivitamin/probiotics. I recieved a notification that the page was considered an "orphan" as well as a tip to add categories. Upon following this direction, I did realize that some of the page's content should be revised (noteably the marketing related information). All other information is purely unbiased and substantiated by the scientific studies referenced (I'm a healthcare guy). With this in mind, am I able to repost the page, add the "hangon" leader, and revise the content to not include any marketing related information? Originally, I thought this content would be of value to readers given the context in which I developed the page, but have since realized that it should not be included within Wikipedia pages. I am relatively new to the Wiki community and would love to hear your insights on improving this page so that it is at a quality/standard suitable for Wikipedia.
Thanks so much, Axlrosen. I really appreciate your time and guidance. Have a great day and looking forward to your response.
(Ry4Health 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
- All of your edits appear to be promoting Multibionta and its marketing campaigns. This gives you the clear appearance of a conflict of interest. (I'm not saying that you have a conflict of interest, I'm just saying that to all outward appearances, it appears that you do.) So it's going to be very hard for you to create a WP:NPOV page on this subject, once which doesn't violate the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. (Also - many people who read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest should probably also read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry :) Remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. If your interests differ from those (e.g. you want to get the word out on Multibionta), then that's going to be a problem. Does that make sense? Axlrosen (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the above makes sense. Thanks for your help. I'm now wondering whether I will be able to repost if I remove all marketing related info and add "hang on" with notes appended. The article will then only offer unbiased information on Multibionta and third party research concerning consumption studies on probiotic strain efficacy/safety. I think this should certainly meet guidelines without giving WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Please let me know what my next steps can/should be. As a new contributor, I really appreciate your help and support!
- Hi, and thanks for engaging on this topic. I'm glad that you're interested in learning and doing the right thing. Personally, I am pretty skeptical that such an edit would meet the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Note of course that I speak only for me; others may have different opinions. Axlrosen (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Edits made to Natural World Museam
I have a letter here from the United States Bankruptcy court which confirms the edits I created were factually correct for the Natural World Museum. How might I get a copy of this to you to allow the edits I did to be acceptable to Wikipedia and to accurately reflect the history of the NWM?
- Hi RK. It's not about getting this information to me; it's how to make the reader of the article know that you're not some crackpot with a grudge against this museum. (Which I don't think you are BTW.) Check out WP:V for the scoop on the Verifiability requirements for Wikipedia, and WP:CITE on citation. I'm not completely sure how to deal with this particular type of reference (a letter from a court) - a published citation would certainly be more ideal, but I think if you just presented the information about the letter in a scholarly-sounding way, it would be pretty good evidence. (Like, "Personal letter from Judge John Smith, U.S. Bankruptcy Court of Virginia, dated Jan 14 2009" or something.) Also, make sure that only facts from that letter are included in the article... if it doesn't say that people are "stranded", then saying so in the article would be original research. You could even scan it and post it somewhere, maybe even in wikinfo.org. Does that make sense? Axlrosen (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of HairMax LaserComb
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is HairMax LaserComb. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HairMax LaserComb. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Pure wiki deletion, redux
Hi, I just wanted to inform you about the pure wiki deletion proposal proposal being put up for discussion again at WP:VPPR. I'm pretty stoked to see this idea finally come to fruition and accordingly drinks are on me for all 31,046,254 editors of the wiki (at least until the keg runs out). Cheers, Tisane (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
A question about your edit of the Kinetic Bombardment in fiction page
- I didn't - User:Therealhazel did. I think you misread the diff. Axlrosen (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)