User talk:Whitefriar66

Thank you both for clarifying your position, which I completely understand. I hope you understand my position, I am an academic and a visiting guest lecturer at Coventry University. I have been trying to educate and correct misinformation on rising damp for a number of years. My academic peers have had two years to challenge my alternative definition for rising damp but in fact it is not even in dispute, it is purely an academically correct and verifiable point and the update is long overdue.

Thank you both again for responding.

Welcome!

Hello, Buildingdefectanalysis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Damp (structural) does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! TF ^{{ Contribs }} 13:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TitusFox[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

I have recently had an improvement rejected to an article on the basis that the commentary did not comply with your NPOV policy but in fact this is incorrect. TitusFox has either claimed that the cited website www.buildingdefectanalysis.co.uk is not a respected website, and/or claimed that the comments placed in the section on rising damp have not been put into print when in fact they have. I could have cited a number a number of references for these comments. Ironically one of those citations would have been from www.surveyingproperty.blogspot, a website that has printed the same article that you have already cited under the same section I have changed. The comments with regard to the correct definition for rising damp have also been printed in an article placed in the SAVA technical bulletin (Issue 17, Feb 2014. 'Rising Damp, A Myth?. Author, Joe Malone). If you discount my true and academically verifiable comments then you must also discount and rewrite large sections of this piece since the comments detailed by Stephen Boniface were made in response to the article I wrote, 'Rising damp, an update for 2013', the same article contains the comments with regard to the new and alternative definition for rising damp, a definition that has never been challenged in the two years since publication and yet you have sought to remote comments contained within an a article that you have already cited. Since it is my own academic writing then I thought it only right to link it to my own academic blog rather than the SAVA technical bulletin or www.surveyingproperty.blogspot Could you please reinstate my comments and amendments or provide an explanation for this rather large contradiction please?

Buildingdefectanalysis (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Main reason that I said that your post was not to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View was that your username is also the web address for your source. Therefore, I saw it as a bias from your side. If you think that I was wrong in my judgment, feel free to ask another user on their opinion. Thanks, TF ^{{ Contribs }} 16:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases like "my true and academically verifiable comments" are rather large tells that you might have a conflict of interest on the subject. Regarding the reversion, I completely agree with Titusfox's decision. Furthermore, if you are the only one that has written about this topic, then it does not meet our notability standards (and doesn't really count as an "alternate theory"). As a note, normally blogs such as blogspot are not acceptable, as they are not reliable sources, but in this instance it's simply giving evidence of a quote (which in my opinion doesn't even need to be in the article).

If you wish to further work on this article with content you have written yourself, I highly suggest bringing it up on the talk page to gather a consensus on what parts should be included (if any). When you do this, you should disclose that you are the author of this theory so that the parties involved know you have a conflict of interest. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Buildingdefectanalysis", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because user name is not a personal name, but instead is the same as a website, http://buildingdefectanalysis.co.uk/, so there are potential WP:COI concerns. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Happy holidays! Paine 17:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]