User talk:Lyoness expert

Welcome!

Hello, Lyoness expert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lyoness may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm Technopat. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Lyoness because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Technopat (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Sorry for not replying sooner, but by leaving your message at the top of my talk page, as opposed to in the correct chronological order, I didn't notice it until a moment ago, and then only by chance. Regarding my edit, I have no idea as to the content of the article you mention, and my edit consisted simply in correcting a grammatical error. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you note. I appreciate the problem, but as nothing is ever black or white, I'm afraid I will have to issue the same 3RR to all the editors involved in the current dispute. I shall also raise the matter at the appropriate noticeboard for admin. intervention. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lyoness shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Technopat (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Technopat (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about source in Lyoness article

Dear Lyoness expert,

I seem to have stumbled upon a small problem with the sourcing in the Lyoness article and firstly wanted to ask you about your opinion, in order not to have another editing match. I guess it is in the best interest for both of us, to talk about such things before any editing takes place and if we cannot find a common ground we can still ask an admin for her/his opinion.

The section in question is about the alleged article in the December 2012 issue of the magazine Kriminalpolizei and the subsequent counterstatement in the next issue. There is an online archive of said magazine and neither in the issue 12/2004 (http://www.diekriminalisten.at/krb/show_archiv.asp?id=55) nor in the following issue 2/2005 (http://www.diekriminalisten.at/krb/show_archiv.asp?id=56) is there an article about Ponzi or pyramid schemes or a counterstatement. Searching the archive for the keyword Lyoness also did not show any results.

Therefore I wanted to ask you, whether one should leave the section that references those articles in the Wikipedia text, since there does not seem to be a verifiable source for them.

Thank you for your time.

--LyoNewMedia (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your reply on my talk page

Dear Lyoness expert,

thank you for your reply. While I fully trust your statement that you have seen the article in question and I agree that an article published in a written publication of an organisation such as the Austrian Kriminalpolizei is a reliable source, I might see the problem appear that the reference in the Wikipedia article does not give the reader the opportunity to check whether the source material really exists and if it represents certain quality standards and objectivity, since it does not show up in the online archive of the magazine Kriminalpolizei.

The response of Lyoness you mention, which you state provides further evidence for the existence of the article “Gier nach Geld”, was also published in Kriminalpolizei and the reference in the Lyoness text on Wikipedia also does not give the reader the opportunity to check whether the source material really exists.

To summarize: I do not challenge the quality of the alleged source material, I just think it is a problem that Wikipedia readers cannot confirm for themselves whether that source material really exists and if it meets certain quality criteria.

Thank you for your time.

--LyoNewMedia (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lyoness expert,

Thank you for your reply. I fully understand the point you are making, but I still see some fundamental problem with the sourcing here. I agree that not all print sources publish their articles online, but Kriminalpolizei has the full content of all its magazines online. Only the articles you mentioned do not show up. In my opinion that represents a problem with verifiability, since it would seem strange that everything is online but just these articles are not.

In your reply you also mentioned that Wikipedia readers, who are skillful with the internet, should have no problem finding the source online. But if it is that if it is that easy and you already found the article online, why can’t the link just be replaced then, so everyone can look the article up? With that solution, we would not need to discuss this topic. So, if you can find it somewhere, it would be very kind if you could replace it. Or another possible solution: Scanning of the article since you have obtained a written copy, as you mentioned. I have looked for the article extensively online, but I could not find it anywhere. So another issue is that readers, who are not that skillful with the internet, have no chance to check the source for its reliability.

That is why in my opinion the problem still exists – even though there is a complete archive of the magazine, the referenced articles are not to be found.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

All the best, --LyoNewMedia (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

Dear Lyoness expert,

I am sorry if you have the wrong impression about me asking Technopat for guidance - and I cleary stated that I am just asking for guidance. I also never told him that we were having a dispute, I just said that we are having a discussion and that is all. If you consider me asking Technopat for input not acceptable then I cannot change it, but I never had any bad intentions.

Apart from that, you now mention that you never said you had a copy of the magazine but in your previous reply to me you left the clear impression you have one, since you just mentioned that uploading a scan would clash with Wikipedia guidelines but did not mention that you could not provide a scan anyway.

I also never said that there is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines, I just wanted to discuss the problem with the verifiability of the reference. I have laid out my arguments about this, you have laid out yours and I thought Technopat might be able to add to this. If you read my message to him/her, you should see that I also told him/her to look at both of our arguments.

Getting to your reply on Technopats page. I do not know that the referenced article exists, how am I supposed to know that if I cannot find them?

Regarding your accusations of bias, I have left a message on the talk page of Cnilep, so I have taken a stand on that. Apart from that I really do not appreciate being accused of certain things - I guess you feel the same.

P.S.: I will post this reply on the Talkpage of Technopat as well.

All the best --LyoNewMedia (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and... reply

Greetings Lyoness expert. Thanks for your note. As I pointed out to LyoNewMedia, the issue is particularly complex, and I'm afraid there's not much I can do to shed much light on it beyond what you (both) already know. And certainly not in just a few words. As I mentioned, it's a sort of loophole regarding verifiability, and in which the principle of assuming good faith (fine when dealing with non-contentious content) combines with the recurring problem of Wikipedia:Link rot. Again, as I pointed out, I'm often unable to add content regarding issues I have firsthand knowledge of simply because I can't provide a verifiable source at that moment. Frustrating, but "them's the rules". My own rule of thumb, which is by no means a policy here at Wikipedia ("It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Definition of published)) is that if I add content which is contentious, the reference must be verifiable on Internet. If that reference later becomes a dead link, which is surprisingly frequent, there are tools, including Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine, which may solve the problem. A similar problem occurs when, for example, an archive such as that of The Times changes from providing free access to requiring subscription.

Much of your current discussion seems to revolve around "negative information", and I have devoted much time and energy over the years to make sure that such information is not removed from articles, provided that the references are directly verifiable, that is, accessible on-line (preferably using more than one URL, precisely to pre-empt link rot). The problem is when such information is no longer immediately verifiable, in which case, out it goes –and I insist, this is my own approach– at least until consensus has been reached on the talk page to restore it. This has the added advantage that, by involving other editors who know something about the issue, there's a greater probability of finding alternative sources.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jimmy Wales' comment here: [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." (Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006) It may seem a bit outdated now, and current standards are much more flexible, but I sincerely believe that, for Wikipedia's sake, its spirit must be maintained.

Just two more points: I have no objection to LyoNewMedia, or any other user, approaching me directly to exchange views. Every little bit helps in reaching consensus. Likewise, the fact that this was done before or after replying to your note should not be interpreted in any way. Just like we cannot expect a user to reply immediately –not everyone is here 7/24– there are many possible explanations available and we must always assume good faith. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]