Bluewater Michigan Chapter NRHS
- Take a look at what constitutes Reliable Sources. It may help you reference the article. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to User talk:Steve torrico "scolding"
Your reference to a "scolding", here, actually refers to two standard user warnings. If you have a problem with the text or tone of these messages, please feel free to discuss it here. WuhWuzDat 23:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually my disagreement was with your choice of those templates rather than a "welcome, newuser" template, as WP:AGF would seem to require. Certainly the guy is a WP:SPA... but is that because you WP:HOUNDed him away by reverting all his edits? You called WP:COI and he is an insider, but so are you for IRM. *shrug* WP:KETTLE abounds I guess.
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Southern Michigan Railroad Society, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. WuhWuzDat 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's also the simultaneous tag on the article mainpage.
- It's been removed three times by another editor, and WuhWuzDat keeps reinserting it    . Edit-warring is never nice. Somebody needs to explain or support a position, and that obviously rests on the person making the bold statement.
- The above template does not define COI. Policy and guidelines COI, BLP, this do. Note that policy disagrees with the template somewhat, especially on the matter of "does COI apply to edits or editors?" Policy also forbids exposing folks' identity or doing Original Research. The bottom line is, the proof of COI lies in the edits.
- Now a few points which are circumstantial, but together test the limits of assuming good faith.
- * Start with the previous item on my talk page, "Your edits to.." It reflects a prior hostile relationship between Mr. Wuhwuzdat and I.
- * The subject matter of our first dispute was, in fact, about the exact meaning of COI (whether it applies to edits or editors), and whether COI alone is a reason to take action against other editors.
- * Since WuhWuzDat and I have had intense discussions on the finer points of COI, his choice to template might be meaningful.
- * Lastly the question of how WuhWuzDat arrived at this article in the first place. I can't imagine a reason he'd take an interest in this article except that - well, I'm here. If editing articles with COI is such a bad thing, what about going out of your way to action other editors you openly dislike?
- The above points are debatable, but any way you slice it, the net effect was a chilling effect. I took a break from contributing because I didn't want to deal. Anyway, I'm going to deal with it now, as best I can.Harpwolf (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)