User talk:Icerat/Archive 2

SEO

Please don't add any more links to your personal website, whether on talk pages or articles. -Will Beback · † · 22:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk is apparently not indexed, your "SEO concerns" are misguided. If a link is relevant to the discussion I will add it irrelevant of it's source, unless you can direct me to any wikipedia guidelines that state otherwise. --Insider201283 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you still check out this page, but just wanted to inform you that I have seen talk pages of articles appearing in Google search results. --Knverma 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given you the reference. In case the message isn't clear, please review these.

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest
Links normally to be avoided: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided
Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming
If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam). Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Those are some of the applicable guidelines. -Will Beback · † · 22:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The link was not to a blog or personal webpage - it was directly to a primary source document.

2. The link was directly relevant to the article and not for the "purpose of promoting a website"

3. The potential COI was mentioned in the talk

4. WP:EL says to use common sense. Linking to page that links to an unreliable version of the primary source document rather than to another copy of the primary source is quite blatantly not common sense.

You have going beyond civility here Will. Your wholesale deletion of links on the Quixtar:Talk page under the bogus guise of "SEO concerns" goes beyond any sensible editing, making it considerably more difficult for anyone reviewing the Talk to refer to any of the sites referenced and smacks of vandalism. Your actions on deleting relevant and valid links to primary source documents is the same. In the case of the PDF file in question the link does not even aid SEO in promoting the hosting site, as you seem to think, as it has no further links. As an administrator you have a duty of care to act a little more responsibly and fairly. --Insider201283 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your website is a personal website.

2. Which link are you referring to? There have been several added.

3. You have identified that you are in a business relationship with the corporation Alticor/Amway/Quixtar, and that you are the proprietor of a large website devoted to defending them. That establishes your COI.

4. The weblink to the Artistry PDF works fine. There's no requirement to insert a link to your own site instead.

5. If you'd like to complain about my behavior you can post a note at WP:AN/I or start a user RfC. I think I've acted perfectly fairly. When I delinked the Quixtar talk page I made sure to include every link, rather than picking and choosing. I treated your site no differently than other websites. -Will Beback · † · 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 the link under question, the artistry PDF, was not to a personal website, it was to the PDF

2 see 1.

3 I declared the COI in talk when I did the link

4 I have had it tested by people in multiple locations and it didn't work. I stated that and linked to another source in good faith. Testing again it now seems fine, must have been a temporary server or network glitch. Shouldn't the article link straight to the PDF rather than to the higher level page?

5. You have most definitely violated Wikipedia:Assume good faith at the least and I will indeed post a note if you continue to act in ways I perceive to be unfair. --Insider201283 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:COI calls on editors to not edit the articles where they have a conflict. In your case that apparently includes Network TwentyOne, Amway, Quixtar, and their products. -Will Beback · † · 23:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's a guideline not a policy

2. I declare my interests on my user page

3. If you review my editing you will find I generally go to great care to properly independently source things and write in a NPOV way. Where properly sourced and valid criticism, such as the Dateline episode, has been included, I have made no attempts to remove it.

4. If WP:COI was a policy, articles on companies such as Amway and Quixtar and affiliated companies would be almost 100% edited by people critical of the companies, since by their very nature virtually all supporters have an interest. In this situation strict adherence to WP:COI would quite obviously be to the detriment of wikipedia.

I would note that an article recommended for reading by WP:COI, [User:Jmabel/PR], confirms - "The rule on "autobiography" is not an outright prohibition, but it is a caution". I believe I am exercising caution, and with this in mind, for me to avoid editing those articles would be an extreme violation of Wikipedia Policy - [Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]. Having no supporters of such articles contributing to them would result in them being what they were, and in some cases still are - the Amway article for example is full of POV and non-WP:RS sources, or at least discredited sources with no challenges. For example, all of the "cult" allegations (a) don't match the articles they cite (b) the articles themselves are based on discredited work (namely singer/lifton) (c) many of the sources are extreme NPOV. Throw in the fact that the allegations are even misdirected and overgeneralized ... sigh ... Frankly it's such a big job to correct it that I haven't even attempted. --Insider201283 00:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you interpret the WP:COI guidelines liberally and interpret WP:RS and WP:EL, which are likewise guidelines in the strictest manner? An answer would be nice, not a removal of the question. DonIncognito 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility would be nice. Continue to respond in the way you often do and I'll simply continue to delete your comments directed to me, as is the recommended way under WP:Civil.

I am not talking about "liberal" interpretation. As pointed out I am acting in the knowledge of COI, properly sourcing matericals, acknowledging my interests on the User page, and writing in NPOV manner. For the reasons stated, ie that if nobody with any kind of "interest" in A/Q can edit those articles, then there would be nothing left but critics to edit it. As it stands we are required to have well-sourced materials to make any claims. If WP:RS was ignored then the article itself would be worthless. If WP:RS and WP:EL was ignored the links section would simply become an edit war. The simple solution is to avoid it. Having someone like myself editing the article, under the restrictions of WP:RS and NPOV, contributes to the factual nature of the article and overall improves wikipedia. If you have properly sourced articles to bring to the table to support your perspective, then do so. If they get deleted and you disagree, take it to mediation or further if you feel it's necessary. If it's acceptably sourced, eg Dateline, then I certainly won't waste time challenging it. Did you notice the comment in the Talk about QuixtarWiki? That wiki, entirely admined by A/Q critics, has been accused a number of times of being a pro-Quixtar recruiting tool! Why? Because to their credit, the admins have tried to maintain NPOV - and when facts are what are allowed, rather than hyperbole and opinion with the loudest voices winning, Quixtar apparently looks good, something you apparently struggle to accept. --Insider201283 00:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not talking about "ignoring" WP:RS or EL. I'm talking about selective enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines on your part. You interpret RS and EL in the strictest fashion (and even as if they were policy, not just guidelines) when it comes to removing information that you don't like. At the same time, you leave information that blatantly violates those guidelines when it is information favorable to Quixtar (check out the Network 21 page before Dec. 26, which was a blatant advertisement for the company and which you did nothing about, and that's only one of many examples.) As far as QuixtarWiki goes, which you seem to like, the article on Quixtar over there contains much more information about Quixtar controversies than the Wikipedia article, mostly due to your large-scale deletions under the guise of RS and EL. Said information is accurate and well-known; however, you delete it simply because it hasn't been published by mass-media or a corporation. Therefore, your selective enforcement of WP:RS and WP:EL to delete only information that YOU don't like, combined with you not being a disinterested party to the articles that you edit, is evidence of non-compliance with WP:COI on your part.

Interesting you miss the part in Network 21:Talk where I support someone who says the article has stuff that is wrong and that it needs to be changed. You also miss the Quixtar article where I say a positive claim needs a citation. There are lots of articles I've seen which require major rewording. That N21 article as it stood was one of them, but as a major edit (a) I really couldn't be bothered and (b) I'm obviously going to prioritise editing stuff that is blatantly false. The N21 article wasn't false, it was just POV and badly sourced. As for "Said information is accurate and well-known" - Codswallop. 1. much of it is NOT accurate and 2. Read the Wikipedia guidelines - truth is explictly stated as not being sufficent criteria. It needs to be sourced. There's a reason for that - lots of people believe stuff that is NOT true or at the least wildly inaccurate. QuixtarWiki has such stuff, and I know from our previous encounters on quixtarblog that you most certainly believe stuff that is not true, or in the least you overgeneralise specific cases or minorities. I still think QuixtarWiki has so much valuable information it outweighs the stuff that is false or misleading. --Insider201283 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "support" of someone who said the article is wrong consisted of saying "add stuff to counter it if it passes WP:RS." However, you did not concern yourself with deleting the advertising material, probably because it was positive. This was no "major edit," the paragraphs simply needed to be removed, and when they were, you sure came up with a replacement paragraph very quickly, so I can see that it wasn't that much trouble. Furthermore, just like the N21 article, much of the information that you've removed here was not false, but rather "POV or badly sourced," and you used the "badly sourced" excuse to remove it.

Also, thank you for telling us that you are not concerned with "truth" but rather with "enforcing the rules." So, if you're such a stickler for the rules, then enforce them on both sides, not just for information that you don't like. DonIncognito 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines--and civility--are a two-way street. If you don't enjoy being accused of violations of COI, and if you truly wish to "improve wikipedia" and not just suppress information that you don't like then perhaps you should apply the same standard to both favorable and unfavorable information in the articles that you edit. DonIncognito 23:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems being accused of violating WP:COI - I am. I believe there are reasonable grounds for doing so, as explained on my talk page. I will clarify that issue further. The only information I am "supressing" is information that is false or misleading and unsourced with regards WP:RS. The Dateline expose is blatantly misleading, but it passes WP:RS so I have to live with it. Even when I've linked to my own site apart from adding it to the external links list when there were other POV sites, I linked to primary sources, such as the FTC pdf letter, the Artistry PDF file, and the CR rankings - not to POV articles.

I'm yet to see a single instance of you correcting falsehoods that reflect badly on Quixtar or Amway, and many of your promoting blatantly POV stuff. Look in a mirror before you try criticising me. --Insider201283 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty obvious from this paragraph that you think anything that is critical of A/Q is false or misleading. Also, thank you for admitting that you have no problem violating those Wiki guidelines that are inconvenient for you and strictly enforcing those that are. DonIncognito 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insider, you haven't edited in compliance with WP:COI. You've edit-warred over the inclusion of links to your website without disclosing at the time your relationship to it. You've created articles about the products you sell. You've removed criticisms of the companies you are involved with. You did not, until a couple of days ago and after being asked directly, make any disclosure of your ongoing commercial relationship with the subjects. Again, I call on you to follow the WP:COI guideline by not editing the articles on Network TwentyOne, Amway, Quixtar, and their products. You are free to use the article talk pages to discuss proposed changes, and to use RfCs and other forums in order to bring problems to the attention of neutral editors. -Will Beback · † · 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "edit-warred" over inclusion of links to my website, that is a false accusation. The only article I've created was SA-8, and that was actually because somebody (whom I do not know, I was emailed) asked me to add it to the Laundry Detergent page and I thought it was a sensible idea. I told them they should add it themselves, but then figured an article would be sensible too. At that time I was not aware of WP:COI, and I put up the User page with disclosure BEFORE I became aware of WP:COI. I've only removed criticism where it is blatant POV and unsourced and always given reasons. If you can come up with anywhere I have made unreasonable or unsourced changes then please point them out. I have made no changes apart from a self-referencing error on the Nutrilite article since you pointed out WP:COI. I have also pointed out the problems with WP:COI in this instance and you have not addressed any of those issues. At the very least point out where I have edited articles in a way that did not "enhance wikipedia". Guidelines are there for a purpose, and it is not for the purpose of having people enforce guidelines. It is there to promote quality. I believe I have contributed to the quality of wikipedia and you have yet to indicate a single place where I have not. --Insider201283 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]

I think these links document the article edits you've made which promote your website or your business partners, or which reduce or remove critical material. Included are numerous instances of adding your own website while removing either links or references to comparable websites. WP:COI calls on editors who have a conflict to forego editing articles directly and instead to use the talk pages, etc, in order to make sure their viewpoints are included. It does not say that editors with conflicts may edit if there are no unconflicted supporters available. Now that you know of the guideline you should follow it. -Will Beback · † · 22:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, you are being disingenous. Let's look at the first few edits.

1. There were links to a number of negative POV sites, none to non-corporate positive sites. I added my site, providing more balance. I did NOT remove the other sites.

2. When it became apparent WP:RS was being "enforced" with regards to external links and somebody added an extreme POV blog, I removed it. I did not re-add any positive links.

3. Same issue on the Amway article - links provided to anti POV sites, none provided to positive POV sites. I did not remove the anti- sites

4. and 5. Factual, sourced, relevant information to what was already there about John Maxwell and clarifying who he was. If Emmet Smith was notable, I thought Tim Foley would be even more so. I have no connection at all with Tim Foley.

6. Removal of extreme POV personal website link. I did not add anything.

I'm not going to continue, assuming these are earliest edits, these are the ones when I was LEAST aware of wikipedia editing guidelines (and I seem to find more every week). Every single one was done in good faith and in no way violating any guidelines except WP:COI and not adding your own site - neither of which I was not aware of at the time. You have claimed of "numerous instances of me adding my own site while removing either links or references to comparable websites" - while not checking through the entire list I'm fairly confident this accusation is false. It certainly is checking the first 6 edits. I've only added +ve POV sites when there were existing -ve POV sites. I've only removed -ve POV sites when they have been added in violation of the standards the article was being edited under. In this accusation you are (a) in violation of WP:Assume Good Faith and (b) bordering on violations of WP:Civility. I have ALWAYS acted in good faith in my edits. I have been fair and followed all guidelines when I have been aware of them. On the other hand in these cases-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quixtar&diff=96444668&oldid=96444632

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quixtar&diff=82842881&oldid=82818839

You quite happily revert to edits critical of Quixtar that have little to no sourcing at all! Yet demand sourcing for positive comments -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quixtar&diff=90607476&oldid=90604420

There's a word for that kind of behaviour Will. And "fair" and NPOV do not describe it. --Insider201283 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that if you look at the SA8 (detergent) article for example I noted that CR did not rate SA8 a "best buy" because of it's expense, and the quixtar response. I could have simply ignored the "negative" part of their report, but in the interests of NPOV I did not. --Insider201283 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so this [57] is a good faith edit and not a blatant attempt to get exposure for your site and the misleading info on tha tpage. Whatever you say. DonIncognito 00:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was actually a deliberately cynical ploy to show up the ridiculousness of you claims re those issues. I had no expectation for the edit to remain. I plead guilty to editing to make a point. --Insider201283 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so enforcing WP:RS strictly is ridiculous now? Glad to know that. Also, you've just contradicted your statement above that you've "ALWAYS acted in good faith in your edits." DonIncognito 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough point. I forgot that exception. --Insider201283 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, conveniently enough ;-) But I'm sure there are plenty of other "conveniently forgotten" examples, such as wholesale deletions of sections of articles [58] that could have instead been (and later were) rewritten.

The reason for deletion was given in talk and I stand by it. The allegations were unsupported by the sources (Janssen's informant spoke about a Quixtar IBO, not Quixtar, inc.) and even if true the allegation were (a) not particularly notable and (b) not even what "google bombing" has usually meant. I did not want to go through the time and effort of the entire arbitration process though so agreed to a rewording while under mediation. Should still be deleted. --Insider201283 01:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown on previous occasions that you're not familiar with what "Google bombing" is, and the described events fit the definition. Once again, a good faith edit would have been rewording of the section to make it more accurate rather than deletion, and the same could be said about several other edits... DonIncognito 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuh. In this cae, I was using the definition in the article. I explained my position then in talk, we went through normal wikipedia channels and came to an agreement. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it, further comments from you on this page will be deleted. --Insider201283 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:POINT. -Will Beback · † · 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why? I have recently become aware of that guideline, which is why I just pleaded guilty to it. --Insider201283 00:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you spend some time becoming familiar with policies and guidelines before editing further. -Will Beback · † · 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the link to Quixtar response to the Dateline piece onto the the Amyway article. It's questionable, but the relationship between Quixtar and Amway are entangled enough so that the distinction is a grey area. -Will Beback · † · 07:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

As I see that no one as welcomed to Wikipedia, I am doing so now. Please take some time to read the different policies. In my experience, it takes a bit of time and effort to understand how these policies work, and appreciate their strength. Take a break over a cup off tea (or a beer), read the links below, and then resume editing with gusto, this time on a better footing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Icerat/Archive 2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actions at Quixtar

I'll have a look over it in context there. If you feel you're being improperly forbidden to edit an article (to my knowledge, only the ArbCom can totally ban someone from editing an article or class of article), you may wish to file an incident report at WP:AN/I to have uninvolved admins examine the action. I would advise caution though-I try to stay away from articles I have a lot of involvement with in my real life, such as those on Linux and the like, because well-I know I'm biased! At the very least, if I do wish to make major changes to such articles, I do discuss it on the talk page first, being aware of this. It's certainly thus far spared me any accusations of POV-pushing or the like, and though a few of my suggestions have been ultimately shot down, I consider that a pretty fair trade overall. Seraphimblade 15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please be careful when using the term "vandalism" to refer to good faith edits by others. The term is defined, for our purposes, here: WP:VANDAL. -Will Beback · † · 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XS Energy

We could have said that they rated "last", which also would have been accurate. It's clear that they rated third among the three listed. It did not say that these were the "most popular", as you added. There's no indication that they tested more than three drinks. The diet energy drink field doesn't have many entries. I could question your unsourced assertion that it offers more flavors than any other brand, or your failure to identify who "reported" it to be the #2 energy drink sold, but I'm not going to. Let's just focus on verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view and we'll be fine. -Will Beback · † · 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. "the top 3" clearly implies more than three. A quick search of bevnet.com finds reviews for at least 30 in the "Diet Energy Drinks" category (I stopped counting). So on what basis do you claim there's "not many entries"? 2. It was not my assertion re flavours, that was from whoever did the article. I've never seen or tried XS, (nor do I market it incidentally). I actually removed the "more flavors" claim and replaced it with a sourced statement. --Insider201283 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "top" in this case is open to interpretation - Is this the ranking of the top tjree, or are these the top three of all ranked? If the latter, why only list the top three diet drinks while listing the ten non-diet drinks? The user reviews of XS Energy drinks are a joke, and one reason why we have to take all claims related to Quixtar/Amway products with skepticism. If you look at them you'll see that the reviewers who give XS drinks "5 star" ratings give all XS drinks the same ratings while giving other drinks, if they review them at all, poor ratings. In other words, they are clearly there to push the voting, not to give objective input. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the cited page Will? Site reviews has nothing to do with it. The page says it was "independently conducted market research" - I would assume blind testing of some variety as is normal for soft drinks tests. It also says more than 100 drinks were involved. Why top 10 listed for non-diet and top 3 for diet? As someone who used to work in survey research, the main reason for doing that would be if those from 4 down had significantly fewer votes than the top 3, such that say 4-10 weren't much different to say 20-30. We agree on one thing though - website user type voting is generally meaningless, and not just for XS, pretty much anything. Far too easily manipulated. --Insider201283 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed when you mentioned 30 reviews you were referring to the user reviews. On re-reading it I see you were referring to the number of diet drinks now in existence. Too bad the complete report costs $1800. -Will Beback · † · 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same goes with nutrilite, artistry, satinque, LOC, SA8 - all the sales data and rankngs is available if you're willing to lay out thousands of dollars per report to the research marketing companies :-( --Insider201283 11:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments

Personal comments about editors do not help build a collegial atmosphere. I don't keep harping on your issues every time I post a message and I don't appreciate your calling my judgment into question whenever you you comment. This is not the blogosphere; civility is a requirement. When using article talk pages please stick to commenting on edits not editors. The appropriate places for comments about editing behavior are user talk pages and dispute resolution pages such as mediation or RfCs. I'd be happy to discuss our personal approaches to editing here or elsewhere but let's keep our article talk page discussions on topic. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 08:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hello. I have reviewed the mediation request between you and Will_Beback, and if both of you find me an acceptable mediator, I am willing to take the case. Please see my general notes and notes about this case. Reply on the case-specific page, and I will update the main case with the outcome. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 07:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comment at User_talk:Willscrlt#Your mediation with Insider and Will Beback. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amway

I have replied on my talk page, just to keep the discussion in one place. See you. -- Knverma 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Steven Hassan page

I wrote: "Perhaps you are a messianic figure but simply never realized your special calling."

It seems the ~~anti-cult movement~~ ... ~~anti-cultists~~ ... ~~cult opponents~~ ... ~~cult critics~~ ... distinguish concerned citizens who enlighten the world about dangerous cults don't appreciate your messianic qualities, so I thought it best not to discuss it further in front of them. And they took offense at him. But Jesus said unto them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house." Mt. 13:57

Besides, it could be risky. As a new messiah, your cult could be vulnerable if targeted by the inert aggregate (not a movement) of concerned citizens. They probably would find a way to deny that they should follow the policy "don't BITE the newbies." -Do c t orW 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm .... speaking of Jesus, haven't even looked at that article yet .... I could really get myself in trouble :-) --Insider201283 02:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re the Hassan RfC

Thanks, Insider, for accepting the Hassan compromise. Tanaats 17:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, was fairly written. Still have concerns re Cambridge College and "expert witness". They kindly sent me a broadcast message inviting me to their open house day or something, but no reply to my request for information :-(. --Insider201283 02:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you return

There is still plenty for you to discuss in the mediation case. If you are no longer interested in continuing the case, please let us know as soon as it is convenient. I hope you and your family are doing well, and that there is nothing seriously wrong. I do understand how life can sometimes make things go nuts and please do not feel pressured to respond until you are ready. I will, however, close the case in 15 days (February 7, 2007) unless you intend to return to the talks or request I close it earlier. Take care. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, apologies for the "desertion", had a crazy few months. Back on board now but happy to close that one. I see though that a number of changes have been made to the articles in question contrary to what had been agreed upon when I was working on them, for example links to WP:RS failing critics sites and such. Which says to me WillB still not being as "balanced" as I would hope an admin would be --Insider201283 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which "Will"? :) Willscrlt is not an admin, I suppose. And he probably never looked at the A/Q articles after the aborted mediation case. --Knverma 21:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edited, my error --Insider201283 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quixtar and related articles

Hey; I was the advocate in an AMA case involving the Google Bomb/Quixtar articles a few months ago, which included yourself. Just dropping a hint that - since this is at least the second time you've been in trouble with the above articles - you might find yourself in hot soup, so it's probably better to move on to another corner of Wikipedia for a while.

After all, there are 6,914,317 articles in Wikipedia - why not pick one of them?

Hope you choose to take my advice on board - disputes help nobody, and they most certainly harm the encyclopedia's integrity.

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is the first time I've logged on to this account in ages - what "hot soup" was this? --Insider201283 19:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quixtar and neutral point of view

I share the same feeling as you. Some people are here just to promote some critics website. I have no clue what their incentive in doing that is. 75.73.188.53 06:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

SEO