User talk:Pius Source

Welcome!

Welcome...

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ʍ w 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ʍ w 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Terms of Use

Hello Pius Source. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Pius Source. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Pius Source|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. ʍ w 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Use of Multiple Accounts

Hello, Pius Source, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you.ʍ w 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Article Talk Pages are Not a Forum for General Discussion

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ʍ w 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mysterious Whisper. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ʍ w 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ʍ w 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we are allowed to jump in here, but it seems this general discussion is being punitive to the corrections that removed the inaccurate and negative bias terms in the Vivos_(underground shelter) article, that were clearly edited by a hostile party (al beit anonymous), as well as the numerous attacks, liableous and slanderous topics that have remained posted on the associated Talk page, without merit, bonafide reference and/or attribution. Clearly those posts were both impolite and disrespectful to both Vivos as a corporation and Mr. Vicino as a well respected businessman. Are you only allowing Talk topics that oppose a valid page? Is it inappropriate to Edit the hostile characterizations and terminology previously peppered throughout the article. Bias cuts both ways. The edits made and responses to the abusive Talk posts would seem to be the fair and ethical thing to allow. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes an unreliable and bias forum for all detractors/competitors of any entity. 2 cents worth... SHELTERIST Shelterist (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed (not removed, they're still there and easily viewable) all comments that did not mention the article itself, which happened to include two overwhelmingly, gushingly positive comments, and one overwhelmingly negative comment. Again, article talkpages are only for discussion the page, with limited discussion of the topic as it relates to the page, not just general discussion. Further, while Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral point of view in agreement with the consensus of the available reliable sources, editors are free to express their own opinions on talkpages, insofar as they relate to potential edits and improvements to the article. ʍ w 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, try to avoid legal terms such as "libelous" and "slanderous"; we have a very strict policy of WP:No Legal Threats, and unnecessary use of such legalese may violate it. ʍ w 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but unclear how Talk statements that are clearly not neutral, such as: "In the business of making money off of fear mongering. The real giveaway is Spike TV doing another reality show. I wouldn't give this much credence other than entertainment value"; "Scam", and "the building of Vivos has been cancelled", are anything but abusive opinions about the company and its founder as whole, versus specific to any fact mentioned in the article itself. That of course depends on which side one is on, or they are truly "neutral". 76.176.191.253 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those sections mentions the article:

The section containing ""In the business of making money..." also contains "And this wikipedia page is an advertisement."
The section "Scam?" is entirely about edits to the article
"The building of Vivos has been cancelled." also contains "This Wiki article should be deleted."

I would offer to archive (remove from the main talkpage) all sections older than 1 year (as unlikely to promote new discussion), but User:Batteryoperated2012 recently responded to most of them, so now they don't really qualify for such archiving.

Also, while I realize the tone of those comments will make this hard, you are bound by policy to assume good faith of other editors and not personally attack them.

ʍ w 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, under the guise of "referencing" the article, an "editor" can present his/her opinion making unfounded, uninformed and illegitimate abusive statements and/or comments. I will be sure to comply in-kind in the future, of course with reference to an article to meet the select policies of WP in "good faith"! Shelterist (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we discourage such an uncivil tone as some of those comments have. But, so long as the comments could be interpreted as in some way constructive (and deleting inappropriate articles can be constructive to the overall encyclopedia), and they don't speak to a pattern of tendentious or disruptive editing, they're technically OK.

ʍ w 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Technically" not disruptive or inappropriate! One must know how to "play" by these special rules when providing uncivil and abusive comments! ;) Shelterist (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ʍ w 17:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]