This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Excirial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Excirial
  No-peacock.svg Internet-group-chat.svg Technical Barnstar.svg Gnome-address-book-new.svg Utilities-system-monitor.svg IC Carrier Icon.svg Application-x-geda-symbol.svg Preferences-desktop-wallpaper.svg Preferences-desktop-font.svg  
  Userpage Talk Awards E-Mail Dashboard Programs Sandbox Sketchbook Blocknote  
 
Talk


Education Noticeboard comment[edit]

Hi there,

I just wanted to leave a quick message for some context regarding the Education Noticeboard, since I noticed you've posted there several times recently (and thanks for that) and may be curious about the kinds of responses likely there. ENB/ENI are for the Education Program broadly, but the ones most likely to see/respond to messages there are Wiki Education Foundation (Wiki Ed) staff, which covers the Education Program in the United States and Canada (specifically, post-secondary institutions). High schools and institutions outside of those countries are still relevant TO ENB/ENI, of course, but fall under the WMF Global Education Program. So while we typically try to respond to most posts on the noticeboards regardless, for high schools and institutions outside US/CA, most of what we can offer is (a) trying to connect people outside the US with people in the Education Program in their country (see outreach:Education/Countries), (b) pinging a representative of the Global Education Program (who, while not typically watching, are usually prompt in their response when notified -- {{noping|TFlanagan-WMF} is a good person to ping, specifically), (c) trying to get the instructor to look at Education Program resources and follow those best practices. Anyone is welcome to use the resources we've developed (see this page of our website), and there are others gathered in places like the Outreach Wiki and various Commons categories. Wiki Ed has a Dashboard that instructors use as a course page of sortsThe Programs and Events Dashboard, which is a fork of the Wiki Ed Dashboard software, is also useful as it includes up-to-date interactive training and can be useful for tracking student work.

I say all this for context, since it's a little bit confusing and the projectspace pages on the subject are a bit out of date in places, and to simplify things if you're looking for help with a class. Perhaps this is all old news (I know at least some of it is), in which case apologies for wasting your time. :) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ryan,
Thank you - this is actually quite helpful. Until about three months ago I was on an extended wikibreak (1.5 - 2 years) and due to this I am still busy catching up on the last two years of Wikipedia that I missed. In area's that I generally work in I'm quite up to date by now though in area's I frequent less - such as the education outreach program - I am still behind on the facts. In a sense i am a book on medical science written 10-20 years ago: A lot of the content inside is still valid but some sections may be superseded or downright incorrect due to recent developments.
That said, I am quite surprised that I ran into such a large influx of student and school editors upon returning. Two years ago educational editors were rare to wander into but these days they are a daily occurrence - partially due to the Dashboard and the Wiki Adventure pointing them out though I am certain the absolute number of them also increased. Either way, hat tip to you and the other WikiEd people for managing the school courses; so far it seems to be quite the improvement. Two years ago educational editors were an unusual find but whenever they popped up it invariably meant that something was burning or had outright exploded already. By comparison the editors I run into these days seem to be doing quite well. Hence, just knowing that they are enrolled in a program is beneficial because this indicates they had guidance and are therefore much less likely to spin off on some inexplicable trajectory halfway during their project. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Two years ago... For comparison, in spring 2015 Wiki Ed supported 117 classes with 2319 students, which we thought was a huge number. Spring 2016 was 215 courses and 4193 students. This semester we're supporting 335 [so far] and 6263 students. Basically we hired paid staff to support instructors as well as students and built tools/training. But obviously most of the responsibility for making sure problems are avoided/fixed is with instructors, so we said "ok, we'll make this a lot easier for you and help your students, but you have to agree to follow these best practices." (Avoiding things like huge lecture classes, not using sandboxes, editing high-traffic or controversial subjects without being really careful, undergraduates editing medical/psychological topics too advanced for their level, grading based on what "sticks", etc.). If someone wants to go it alone, or if they're otherwise not part of Wiki Ed, we'll try to get them involved, but otherwise can't be in the business of helping them -- the model isn't sustainable otherwise because those best practices are just too important to ignore. Anecdotally, I'd say that although there are far more students active, the number of "incidents" with classes is probably about the same as two/three/four years ago, but most get resolved rather than escalate. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

regarding editing the topic of housing society[edit]

I wish to this info is something went to wrong. i am provide the essential info of that particular topic. but i have a condition.this page is copyright by me.anyone can not change my details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.110.170 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@115.248.110.170: In that case you cannot edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia and Wikipedia's content are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. This license explicitly allows anyone to copy, adapt and change Wikipedia's content, and every edit is automatically licensed under this license. Beyond this pages are never owned by a single editor, no matter if they were the initial creators of the page or supplied a large chunk of content: Pages are always freely editable by everyone. Your conditions - copyright and sole access to a page - are therefore not possible nor acceptable. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from Abiz84[edit]

Hello!! Thanks for your help with my Lesbian Bars in SF page. I just had to make it live for a class, no worries about moving it back. I tried submitting this in Lesbian Bars in general but Wikipedia won't let me submit under this name (I think because it is automatically linked to gay bar) -- how do I disarticulate this? Thank you. Abiz84 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Abiz84,
The page currently cannot be moved to Lesbian bar because that page already exists as a redirect page - in order to move your current page the redirect would have to be deleted. The easier method to achieve this is to add a request on the Requested Page Moves page. However, before doing so ensure that your new article is up to standards for an article in the main space. The page as currently written in the sandbox is still heavily focussing on San Francisco, so as of current i wouldn't consider a move to a generic article such as lesbian bar to be a good idea. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Lupin vs scripts of Josh[edit]

Hi,
I added two scripts by josh to User:Usernamekiran/vector.js but they seem to mess up with Lupin, and Twinkle both. If I keep only "new user patrol" script, Lupin and Twinkle works fine, but sript by Josh doesnt seem to be working. Lupin script is added here: User:Usernamekiran/common.js

Am I doing anying wrong? Your guidance is requested. Thanks. Face-smile.svgusernamekiran[talk] 19:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'm not entirely sure why they wouldn't work, though i would note that the scripts were origionally developed for the old default Mono skin and not for the current default Vector skin. You could try switching skins to determine if that may be the cause of the script not working. Alternatively, try a different browser and see if that works. Personally i use Mozilla Firefox combined with the Mono skin and that works a-ok for me. I also use Twinkle (Though i don't use Lupin anymore) and doing so doesn't create any conflicts. Beyond that i use several other scripts and none of those create any conflict with Josh's scripts. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. I think the same. Do you these scripts too? —usernamekiran[talk] 21:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 1618033golden[edit]

Can you please block this IP address? 70.59.47.82 I noticed you put several vandalism warning templates (up to level 4) on their talk page. This user was clever, though, and actually blanked the page. I was fooled and put a level 1 template on the then empty page. I noticed the page blank and reverted it, so all the old template messages should be back in place. Thanks! 1.6180339887 goldensqᴉɹʇuoɔ 20:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This user's been at it again, when I checked the user talk page just now it was blank. I might have to stop reverting so I don't break 3RR. 1.6180339887 goldensqᴉɹʇuoɔ 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@1618033golden: The editor is now blocked due to their vandalism. One thing i should point out however, is that removing warnings is allowed. Removing a warning is seen as an indication that the user was made aware of the warning itself. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 72.0.166.85[edit]

Collapsed for talk page readability

Hi Excirial--

My name is Blake Weber. I started my first wikipedia username (i think it was blakenathanweber) about 3 years ago and attempted to make a few edits to one page. They were immediately removed by an editor named Binksternet. I have not used my wiki account before or after that experience due to the fact it appeared truth was not given a place and this one editor had earned enough "weight" to just do as he wishes.

I am contacting you about the wikipedia page called On Becoming Babywise. This is the name of a book. Some refer to this book as "Babywise." I noticed that you recently made a large edit and I wanted to ask you a few questions in hopes I can better understand what Wikipedia's hopes for true neutrality.

A little bit of history on myself and my knowledge of Babywise. When Binksternet told me there might be a conflict of interest in my "placing true, sourced fact" on the wiki page, I asked where I can fully explain who I am and my knowlege/connection to Babywise. He sent me to a talk page. So I went to the provided talk page and gave the full history how I worked at Multnomah Publishers in the 1990s and was fully aware of this book and all of its history as I was one of the 148 employees at Multnoamh. In 2001, I started a publishing company and today I am the CEO of Hawksflight & Associates who is the sole publisher of On Becoming Babywise. Thus, I have been with Babywise since the beginning in the early 1990s and am still publishing this #1 best seller. I am the son of a preacher who is also a best selling author and have been in the publishing world now for 25 years. You can read all of this about myself on this wikipedia talk page that Binksternet set up for me about 3 years ago-- I typed it all in myself.

What I am having trouble understanding is it appears that still today there are sourced edits that are made to Babywise wiki page that are simply removed immediately by Binksternet regardless of their sources, following the wiki guidelines, etc. One of the things that didn't pass the smell test several years ago was when Binksternet typed a message to me after pulling all my sourced edits of truth that said he thinks the Babywise author is a religious fanatic with no medical background who grabbed a young no-name pediatrician to rumerstamp his nonsense.

Excirial-- your wiki page says you have 212,345 edits. Wow, you have been at this for a while. That tells me you have an incredible understanding of the Wiki system, rules, guidelines, and hopes for overall neutrality. It says you have protected 208 pages since 2010 and blocked over 4,800 users. Again, you have been very busy on this site and seem to have a fabulous grasp on how it works. I won't beat around the bush-- my desire is to understand from you how and why Binksternet should not be blocked from touching the Babywise page. Let me explain a bit further.

When i saw your edit to the Babywise page (obviously you were trying to be fair and without making anything personal, you felt there was something fishy about that edit), I noticed Binksternet in the history portion also made a similar edit a few months ago. The day after Binksternet's edit in the history, I see today that Amazon's Babywise page was flooded with NASTY one star reviews on Babywise. Now you might say: that is or could be a coincidence. I would agree that it could be and might look like a coincidence. But part of being the publisher for Babywise for the last 25 years and 5 million copies sold is that I watch the Amazon site at least 3 times a day on the average day. So I know that over the last 5 years +, our Amazon Babywise page gets about 9 reviews that are 4 or 5 star for every 1 review that is one star. 10% across the board did not like the book. It is very rare to see two reviews on Amazon in a row that are ONE star. But moments after Binksternets' edit a few months ago, there were 8 terrible ONE star reviews posted (and they were not normal reviews that comment on the contents of the book, they were philosophical tear downs and character assassination style reviews.

One more direct observation about Binksternet. It appears on the history page of Wiki Babywise that when Binksternet made his edit of restoring old copy a few months ago he decided to add one paragraph. When you read the paragraph that Binksternet added that day, it is a clear false statement and obvious lie without source. His claim in this edit was that the AAP has warned against Babywise. Excirial, the AAP has NEVER warned against Babywise. The AAP represents 62,000 Pediatricians and they have never mentioned Babywise. They have never made a formal statement about Babywise. You can look up on their website today and type in Babywise, you will find nothing. How does Binksternet get away with this type of personal opinion flinging? Neutral is my goal, but it is not the historical pursuit that Binksternet has proven to follow.

About three years ago I asked Binksternet following his pulling my edits off the wiki page: why is it that he pulled my descriptive word for "Distinguished" in describing 28 year Pediatrician and co-author of the #1 selling baby sleep guide on earth while he leaves the descriptor "popular" in describing the competition William Sears down below on the Babywise Wikipedia page? Binksternet told me that William Sears had "earned" the adjective "popular". Babywise has sold 5 million copies and today is the #1 Best Seller on Amazon.com in Sleep Disorders, Breastfeeding, Single Parenting, Children's Health, Infants, Child Care, and Twins & Multiples. Babywise outsells and outranks all of William Sears books on Amazon and on every website.

One of the edits of truth I had added several years ago that were not allowed by Binksternet was mentioning the incredible resume of 28 year Pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D. who co-wrote Babywise in the early 90s with Gary Ezzo, M.A. and has directed 5 full revisions over the last 25 years taking Babywise from 160 pages in its first edition to 279 pages in todays updated and revised edition. Binksternet decided several years ago to pull all mention of Dr. Bucknam, his resume, and his thriving practice in multiple hospitals with 37 other licensed Pediatricians. Instead, Binksternet reinstitute the multiple sections of the wikipedia Babywise page that speak about the lack of medical support, credentials, an backing. In fact, in this regard- Binksternet has reinstated several sentences onto the wiki page about how many medical professionals are alarmed and disagree with Babywise, but he does not cite the dozen Pediatricians that endorse Babywise in the book itself along with Professors of Pediatrics, R.N.C.L.E., Obstetricians, Pediatric Neurologist, Pediatric Cardiologist, and International Pediatricians. It seems as though Binksternet is excited about protecting all criticism (of which was voiced over 20 years ago with the first edition of Babywise) and making sure all medical support and credentials are removed from the wiki page. It doesn't really smell like "neutrality" to me.

Binksternet called the author's website that serves hundreds of thousands of new mothers each year a questionable source and pulled it. I see that Wikipedia sources our competitions' website on their own page 4 times in the foot notes: What to Expect and Whattoexpect.com. So that doesn't seem real consistent or fair by Binksternet. Several years ago, I had placed quotes from the best selling Babywise book itself on the page in one location and sourced it, and Binksternet said that is not a useable source. Our competition Solve Your Child's Sleep Problems sources a book (The Baby Sleep Book) on source #4 on its wiki page and that is allowed. Again, not super consistent and seems unfair. Binksternet has pulled the "external links" to the authors' website on the Babywise wiki page and I see all kinds of authors on wiki are allowed to have their websites shown at the bottom of their wiki pages under "external links" such as: Ann Coulter, What to Expect, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh etc. Binksternet removed from the Babywise wiki page a listing of the authors other 9 books under "other titles" and I see wikipedia has a standard treatment of other like authors in showing all their other books at the end of their wiki pages under "other titles". Binksternet has allowed the criticism and negative narrative on Babywise to be in multiple sections of the Babywise wiki page whereas I see other authors (like Harvy Carp on Happiest Baby on the Block) have all their criticism plainly listed and confined to the "criticism" section.

Excirial-- my biggest concern in observing Binksternet and his practices over several years is that his edit he just decided to add a few months ago about the AAP WARNING AGAINST BABYWISE is a clear attempt to show one side of the same story. I will explain: The Babywise wiki page cites a small abstract that is the personal opinion of one doctor named Aney in 1998 where a small magazine called the AAP News carried Aney's pesonal opinion. Again, this was a negative personal opinion shared by Dr. Aney in a small magazine called the AAP News after Aney didn't agree with the FIRST edition of Babywise in 1998. Binksternet confuses reality (it appears on purpose) for the reader because he does not cite the FOUR DOCTORS COMPLETE REBUTTALS also published in the AAP News in 1998 taking issue with Aney, debunking his claims, and asserting that they are finding tremendous success with Babywise in their private practices with clients. Binksternet does not mention or cite this same source the very next month. It appears in observing Binksternet's behavior over many, many years that he has an ax to grind with Babywise.

Excirial- I really appreciated your talk page and your experience. You mentioned one does not need to fear retribution and that an administrator like yourself is just a user with a mop and a bucket. I have done all I know how to do to keep unpromotional truth at the forefront of my comments. I have kept sourced truth only on the tip of my tongue. Neutrality is of great interest to me. What must I do to take my case in search of truth being given its rightful platform and seeking to block all those who do not seek true neutrality? I have laid out some examples here today for you to review and discover if unpromotional truth that is fairly sourced and accepted by Wiki guidelines is allowed on the Babywise wiki page. It is my belief that Binksternet is and has shown a clear desire to slant the narrative, block fair truth that is sourced, and tell a story on Babywise that he wants to be read by all in an attempt to give Babywise a black eye.

Would you mind emailing me at weber8993@aol.com as I am not super well versed on the wiki system and knowing how and where to find your response to me? I am grateful for all your hard work on Wikipedia and look forward to learning more about the quest for neutrality and how I can best serve its interests for Wiki's rules and guidelines.

Thank you!

Blake Weber, 8/8/17, wiki old user name: Blakenathanweber, my email: weber8993@aol.com 72.0.166.85 (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello 72.0.166.85,
My only involvement in the On Becoming Baby Wise is reverting this edit which, aside from removing the formatting, removed all the references from the page. Similar edits were made in the past and reverted by other editors using the same rationale. Now, if i read the above text correctly - and please DO try to keep TL;DR in mind next time - this is effectively a content dispute were you disagree with Binksternets edits to the page. In cases such as these my advice will be to contact the editor and discuss the situation with them. Personally I am effectively just a passer-by who has no specific knowledge of or interest in the page itself, and on first glance i see no need for any form of administrative action either.
If you merely wish my assessment of the situation i would point out that Binksternets interest in the page seems natural as he wrote most of it back in 2011. Below exemplifies it. The first revision was the page before Binksternet's work on it, the second revision is after his work.
Looking at the last 50 edits to this page (2012 till now), I'd agree with the neutrality reverts made. Wording such as "and shared with some friends who also found incredible success" is little more than promotional cruft. I would also point to this specific edit which Binksternet reverted - if the goal was to slander the book ignoring this edit would have been quite simple. After looking at the talk page i do see something rather odd going on there:
The article itself is visited about 120 times a day, whereas the talk page has less than one visitor a day in the last four months (Mode and mean both being 0 for that period). The chance that two random people would register just to comment on such a low traffic page without either being sockpuppets or canvassed is exceptionally low. This is somewhat worrisome because inappropriate canvassing and especially sockpuppetry are specifically against Wikipedia policy - so i do hope this is just an odd one-time flare-up that doesn't warrant further looking into it.
In short: If you believe that Binksternet's editing is a problem please discuss this with him, though i would add that my own (cursory) review of the page revealed no edits i wouldn't understand / have made myself if I encountered these. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 72.0.166.85[edit]

TL;DR

72.0.166.85 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you Excirial for responding to my questions about Babywise in the last 48 hours. Sorry that I don't know how to reply to your comment on your talk page, so I am just making a new comment to ya to follow up.

Again, I am grateful for another pair of eyes to tell me what you see. Your wisdom was to contact Binksternet directly and I did that about 3 years ago. And here is what he told me directly: THE BOOK IS A TRAVESTY OF BAD ADVICE, WRITTEN BY A CHRISTIAN HUSBAND/WIFE TEAM WHO HAD WORN OUT THE PATIENCE OF THEIR CHURCH. THE BOOK WAS RUBBER-STAMPED BY A YOUNG PEDIATRICIAN WITH NO REPUTATION.

Excirial- does that sound like the voice of neutrality as he makes edits of his own and removes other people's edits? It sounds and feels like a major personal bias and agenda against Babywise and its authors. His opinion is "travesty of bad advice." He singles out the author's faith though it is not brought up in the book. Binksternet says it was written by "wife" team and it was not. He talks about their church inaccurately (I was at Multnomah Publishers when CEO Donald C. Jacobson invited any of the churches that had supposedly kicked the Ezzos out to come and speak the truth and NOBODY came or spoke). He says Dr. Bucknam has no reputation (Bucknam in 28 years of private practice and authorship currently outsells all the 6 doctors that are on the wiki page that oppose Babywise). Binksternet says Bucknam "rubber-stamped" a book (Dr. Bucknam has overseen 5 complete revisions since the early edition of Babywise taking Babywise from 160 pages originally to 279 pages today). Binksternet is not informed and inaccurate in his personal bias and agenda against Babywise and its authors.

A little bit of history on myself and my knowledge of Babywise. When Binksternet told me there might be a conflict of interest in my "placing true, sourced fact" on the wiki page several years ago, I asked where I can fully explain who I am and my knowlege/connection to Babywise. He sent me to a talk page. So I went to the provided talk page and gave the full history how I worked at Multnomah Publishers in the 1990s and was fully aware of this book and all of its history as I was one of the 148 employees at Multnoamh. In 2001, I started a publishing company and today I am the CEO of Hawksflight & Associates who is the sole publisher of On Becoming Babywise. Thus, I have been with Babywise since the beginning in the early 1990s and am still publishing this #1 best seller. I am the son of a preacher who is also a best selling author and have been in the publishing world now for 25 years. You can read all of this about myself on this wikipedia talk page that Binksternet set up for me about 3 years ago-- I typed it all in myself.

What I am having trouble understanding is it appears that still today there are sourced edits that are made to Babywise wiki page that are simply removed immediately by Binksternet regardless of their sources, following the wiki guidelines, etc.

I noticed Binksternet in the history portion also made an edit a few months ago. The day after Binksternet's edit in the history, I see today that Amazon's Babywise page was flooded with NASTY one star reviews on Babywise. Now you might say: that is or could be a coincidence. I would agree that it could be and might look like a coincidence. But part of being the publisher for Babywise for the last 25 years and 5 million copies sold is that I watch the Amazon site at least 3 times a day on the average day. So I know that over the last 5 years +, our Amazon Babywise page gets about 9 reviews that are 4 or 5 star for every 1 review that is one star. 10% across the board did not like the book. It is very rare to see two reviews on Amazon in a row that are ONE star. But moments after Binksternets' edit a few months ago, there were 8 terrible ONE star reviews posted (and they were not normal reviews that comment on the contents of the book, they were philosophical tear downs and character assassination style reviews.

One more direct observation about Binksternet. It appears on the history page of Wiki Babywise that when Binksternet made his edit of restoring old copy a few months ago he decided to add one paragraph. When you read the paragraph that Binksternet added that day, it is a clear false statement and obvious lie without source. His claim in this edit was that the AAP has warned against Babywise. Excirial, the AAP has NEVER warned against Babywise. The AAP represents 62,000 Pediatricians and they have never mentioned Babywise. They have never made a formal statement about Babywise. You can look up on their website today and type in Babywise, you will find nothing. How does Binksternet get away with this type of personal opinion flinging? Neutral is my goal, but it is not the historical pursuit that Binksternet has proven to follow.

About three years ago I asked Binksternet following his pulling my edits off the wiki page: why is it that he pulled my descriptive word for "Distinguished" in describing 28 year Pediatrician and co-author of the #1 selling baby sleep guide on earth while he leaves the descriptor "popular" in describing the competition William Sears down below on the Babywise Wikipedia page? Binksternet told me that William Sears had "earned" the adjective "popular". Babywise has sold 5 million copies and today is the #1 Best Seller on Amazon.com in Sleep Disorders, Breastfeeding, Single Parenting, Children's Health, Infants, Child Care, and Twins & Multiples. Babywise outsells and outranks all of William Sears books on Amazon and on every website.

One of the edits of truth I had added several years ago that were not allowed by Binksternet was mentioning the incredible resume of 28 year Pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D. who co-wrote Babywise in the early 90s with Gary Ezzo, M.A. and has directed 5 full revisions over the last 25 years taking Babywise from 160 pages in its first edition to 279 pages in todays updated and revised edition. Binksternet decided several years ago to pull all mention of Dr. Bucknam, his resume, and his thriving practice in multiple hospitals with 37 other licensed Pediatricians. Instead, Binksternet reinstitute the multiple sections of the wikipedia Babywise page that speak about the lack of medical support, credentials, an backing. In fact, in this regard- Binksternet has reinstated several sentences onto the wiki page about how many medical professionals are alarmed and disagree with Babywise, but he does not cite the dozen Pediatricians that endorse Babywise in the book itself along with Professors of Pediatrics, R.N.C.L.E., Obstetricians, Pediatric Neurologist, Pediatric Cardiologist, and International Pediatricians. It seems as though Binksternet is excited about protecting all criticism (of which was voiced over 20 years ago with the first edition of Babywise) and making sure all medical support and credentials are removed from the wiki page. It doesn't really smell like "neutrality" to me.

Binksternet called our author's website, that serves hundreds of thousands of new mothers each year, a questionable source and pulled it. I see that Wikipedia sources our competitions' website on their own page 4 times in the foot notes: What to Expect and Whattoexpect.com. So that doesn't seem real consistent or fair by Binksternet. Several years ago, I had placed quotes from the best selling Babywise book itself on the page in one location and sourced it, and Binksternet said that is not a useable source. Our competition Solve Your Child's Sleep Problems sources a book (The Baby Sleep Book) on source #4 on its wiki page and that is allowed. Again, not super consistent and seems unfair. Binksternet has pulled the "external links" to the authors' website on the Babywise wiki page and I see all kinds of authors on wiki are allowed to have their websites shown at the bottom of their wiki pages under "external links" such as: Ann Coulter, What to Expect, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh etc. Binksternet removed from the Babywise wiki page a listing of the authors other 9 books under "other titles" and I see wikipedia has a standard treatment of other like authors in showing all their other books at the end of their wiki pages under "other titles". Binksternet has allowed the criticism and negative narrative on Babywise to be in multiple sections of the Babywise wiki page whereas I see other authors (like Harvy Carp on Happiest Baby on the Block) have all their criticism plainly listed and confined to the "criticism" section.

Myy biggest concern in observing Binksternet and his practices over several years is that his edit he just decided to add a few months ago about the AAP WARNING AGAINST BABYWISE is a clear attempt to show one side of the same story. I will explain: The Babywise wiki page cites a small abstract that is the personal opinion of one doctor named Aney in 1998 where a small magazine called the AAP News carried Aney's pesonal opinion. Again, this was a negative personal opinion shared by Dr. Aney in a small magazine called the AAP News after Aney didn't agree with the FIRST edition of Babywise in 1998. Binksternet confuses reality (it appears on purpose) for the reader because he does not cite the FOUR DOCTORS COMPLETE REBUTTALS also published in the AAP News in 1998 taking issue with Aney, debunking his claims, and asserting that they are finding tremendous success with Babywise in their private practices with clients. Binksternet does not mention or cite this same source the very next month. It appears in observing Binksternet's behavior over many, many years that he has an ax to grind with Babywise.

I have done all I know how to do to keep unpromotional truth at the forefront of my comments. I see many others doing the same over the years. I have kept sourced truth only on the tip of my tongue. Neutrality is of great interest to me. What must I do to take my case in search of truth being given its rightful platform and seeking to block all those who do not seek true neutrality? I have laid out some examples here today for you to review and discover if unpromotional truth that is fairly sourced and accepted by Wiki guidelines is allowed on the Babywise wiki page. It is my belief that Binksternet is and has shown a clear desire to slant the narrative, block fair truth that is sourced, and tell a story on Babywise that he wants to be read by all in an attempt to give Babywise a black eye.

Excirial, I am grateful for your wisdom on how the wikipedia family and patrons best navigate such issues. You were very kind to tell me that over 120 new moms are on our wiki page about Babywise every day. That is over 1,000 new mothers a week that are looking to read the truth about Babywise. Currently, Babywise's page lists, describes, quotes, and gives resume to 6 doctors/authors that oppose Babywise. The Babywise wiki page cites NO doctors that support, endorse, and use successfully in their practice the Babywise book and principles. How can 6 opposition doctors and no supporting doctors be allowed on a neutral page about a book. Granted, this book Babywise outsells all 6 doctors/authors 5 to 1 currently. But why the listing of opposition and no listing of supportive medical fact or authors? Thank you for your time and for helping me understand the wikipedia guidelines of neutrality.

72.0.166.85 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Blake Weber, 8/10/17, wiki old user name: Blakenathanweber, my email: weber8993@aol.com72.0.166.85 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned the need for brevity previously I'll be hatting this as Too Long, Didn't Read. A three A4 page long reply is well beyond the length of reply I generally read. And this especially applies if the original question was of equal length yet is 90% identical to the reply. My previous rationale still applies as well - if you disagree with Binksternet over content discuss this disagreement with him, even moreso if the last contact was three years ago. Balancing a page towards neutrality is an eternal process and perhaps some tweaks could be useful. Either way i consider this edit to be detrimental: Removing all references, misformatting the page and turning it into a promotional piece is not an improvement.
As for myself: I'm a non involved observer and with no clear administrative action needed I see no reason whatsoever to become involved in this situation. If i were to become involved in this matter it would be over suspected sockpuppetry i currently suspect. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I completely understand not wanting to read all the times and examples that I have listed where Binksternet has removed truthful sourced information and added false statements with partial sources and misleading commentary he wrote himself. Would you be so kind as to tell me where on Wikipedia I can access a fair minded editor with a lot of "weight" in this neutrality community called wikipedia that does have the time to read at least my four main complaints with Binksternets' clear violations to this page about the #1 baby sleep guide on earth? It seems as though Wikipedia is a haven for no accountability other than the editor with the most edits gets to have his way with the truth. I do understand the eternal pursuit of neutrality on the page, but with 6 opposition doctors quoted with resumes on the Babywise page and no mention of Dr. Bucknam's resume or the dozens of published authors who have endorsed Babywise. Here is the quote Binksternet typed to me last time he communicated with me: THE BOOK IS A TRAVESTY OF BAD ADVICE, WRITTEN BY A CHRISTIAN HUSBAND/WIFE TEAM WHO HAD WORN OUT THE PATIENCE OF THEIR CHURCH. THE BOOK WAS RUBBER-STAMPED BY A YOUNG PEDIATRICIAN WITH NO REPUTATION. That sounds like an ax to grind and a personal agenda with bias to me. If you could be so kind as to direct me to a place on Wikipedia where I might find a highly qualified editor that would have the time to read at least four of my documented violations committed by Binksternet on the Babywise wiki page-- I would be very grateful. Thank you.
72.0.166.85 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Blake Weber, 4/10/2017, old wiki user name: Blakenathanweber
@72.0.166.85: The first step in resolving a dispute is to discuss the situation with the the other editor involved (discussions held three years in the past won't apply for this criteria). If such a discussion doesn't yield any results one of the various options listed on this page can be used. Also, please note that any form of dispute resolution effectively requires that discussion took place beforehand. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 06:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Finders International[edit]

Hi,

I received your message as I was trying to correct some information about my company, named above. We uploaded a Wikipedia page to clarify who we are and what we do. This was then "hijacked" by unknown users who modified the page to link derisory and inaccurate content. I have tried to correct this by my edits, but you sent an alert which stated you think I may be being paid to do this. Finders International was founded by me 20 years ago and I have 27 years industry experience. I noticed some companies have explanatory pages in Wikipedia about who they are. If I'm in breach of something could you kindly explain what and how and if I can protect this page from being "hijacked" again? If protection from inaccurate editing is not possible I would rather the whole page is removed, which would be a shame of course. I'd be grateful for your advice. Kind regards, Daniel Curran, MD, see www.findersinternational.co.uk thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeirHunters (talkcontribs) 18:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello HeirHunters,
I think there are multiple issues i need to remark on here.
  • If you receive financial remuneration for editing you are explicitly required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer / client / affiliation. Editing as a company employee applies in all instances, regardless of the role at the company. Marketeer, designer, programmer, administrative personnel or director are all considered to be paid employees.
  • I see that you refer to yourself as "we" in the above text. I'd have to specifically note that sharing accounts is not allowed on Wikipedia. I'd also have to point out that naming an account after a company or a product isn't allowed either. If either applies here - and i believe at least the second one does - please request a username change on this page.
  • Wikipedia pages are never owned by a specific editor and neither are they protected against editing by any user. Any editor is free to edit a page within policy requirements and no editor can enforce their own "prefered" version of a page to be displayed.
  • In tandem with the above: Wikipedia stives for neutrality in an article, which is done by writing articles based on reliable sources. The edit you labelled as inaccurate seemed to be supported by two references citing The Daily Telegraph which is generally known to be a reliable source. Note that content that is negative in tone is expressively allowed as long as its sourced (For example: Have a look at the long Criticism of Wikipedia article and the controversy sections in other company's wiki pages). Either way, verifiability trumps truth: If a reliable source states "A" and no other reliable source states "B", the "A" statement is included as it can be sourced. In optimal conditions an article is little more than a summary of external references.
Beyond this i would advise reading the FAQ for Businesses as it covers the majority of the questions business owners or employees tend to ask when editing Wikipedia on corp related matters. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from LSIElgin[edit]

Excirial,

You just deleted the content which I created for LSI. I used these wiki pages for context when developing the content for LSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUGE_(digital_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Porter_%2B_Bogusky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_(advertising_agency)

What specific content varied further than the above, to elicit "soapbox" and advertising? The LSI milestones in the history section are no different than the Notable Campaigns from Mother and Wieden+Kennedy.

Please be specific so that I may expedite getting LSI's page completed.

Thanks, Tyler LSIElgin (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@LSIElgin: I would advice reading the FAQ for organisations thoroughly first, as it will likely cover most questions. To summarize what applies to this page: The article its strait-up advertising, its unreferenced, there is no claim to notability and its being written by an edit who has a conflict of interest related to the subject. On a more technical matter it was placed on top of a disambiguation page but considering the other issues that is a more minor concern. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)