User talk:StoneforGoliath

June 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to SK Foods, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: SK Foods was changed by StoneforGoliath (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2012-06-06T21:51:09+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the new contributors help desk, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

SK Foods

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SK_Foods. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SK Foods

Hi. You've seen the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SK Foods, and I think there are a few things that need to be made clear to you about the way Wikipedia works.

Firstly, it seems clear that you believe that Mr Salyer has been the victim of some injustice, and that the record needs to be set straight - and I can't say whether you're right or wrong. But the thing is, Wikipedia cannot be used for that purpose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and can only reflect what has been written by reliable sources (click the link to learn about what they are). Wikipedia can not be used to make allegations against other people or organizations, unless you have reliable sources that explicitly support those actual allegations.

So, for example, you cannot claim that Mr Salyer was abused by person X unless you provide a reliable source that documents the actual abuse by person X against Mr Salyer - using a source that describes unrelated allegations about person X but doesn't even mention Mr Salyer, as you did, is not acceptable. As another example, if Mr Salyer's pleading guilty has a reliable source, then that can be included, but you cannot say he pleaded guilty only because he had been threatened with a lengthy sentence, if the source does not explicitly say that.

Those are just two examples, but your version of the article was full of similar allegations, some of them criminal, aimed at both named individuals and named organizations, but not supported by any reliable sources. And that is a serious violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy and forbidden.

You may believe that what you wrote is correct based on your own experience and/or investigation, but that constitutes Original Research, and is not allowed. You may also, perhaps, believe that what you wrote constituted fair deductions and conclusions from the documents you have seen, but that would be classed as Synthesis and again not allowed.

Anyway, people have questioned whether SK Foods is actually sufficiently notable for inclusion, and you are welcome to comment on the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/SK Foods.

But please, you really must not add material of the kind you have been adding to the article, and you must not repeat the kind of allegations you have been making, against people or organizations. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read WP:UNDUE. A Wikipedia article about a relatively minor company should not be filled with every last detail about it, and should not be used to push a personal point of view about how wonderful the company is and to blame other people for everything bad that happened to it. You clearly have a close connection with the company, and must stop adding to the article in this glowing, praising manner. Now please, wait for the results of the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/SK Foods, and add your comments there if you have any. And take this as your last warning - if you carry in like this, you will be blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm copying your reply here and will add my further reply - it makes more sense to keep discussions in one place so that people can follow them properly (and don't worry, I am watching this page, so I will not miss anything)

Thank you for your message [...]. I understand. I don't even know the guy. I work at the Government and actually have a conscience. This is sick and you are proliferating it. I am not writing in a glowing manner. The last edit is all referenced. Look here to see the hatchet job they ordered on the only decent worker in tomatoes - http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/sk-foods Over 20 lame articles - the worst of all - "Does nude photo of jailed SK Foods co-founder's girlfriend -- holding tomatoes -- qualify as produce porn?" http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/05/sk-foods-scott-salyer-naked-picture-girlfriend-tomato.html. They are enjoying Salyer's money! I hope they get caught. Possibly you could assist with the edit and just include the basic info from the donation reference it tells a bit about the company in a short paragraph. Why does Wikipedia assume the LA Times does not lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneforGoliath (talk • contribs)

Firstly, Wikipedia does not judge whether or not the LA Times is lying - we just report what mainstream sources say and we are not allowed to write based on our personal judgement of their truthfulness. Your "hatchet job they ordered on the only decent worker in tomatoes" claim is blatantly your own personal analysis and a blatantly personal point of view, and writing from your own personal analysis is not allowed here - not even if you are right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only reflects what others have already written - it does not host new writing or new analysis of any kind. If you have a grievance against the LA Times, or any other media sources, or you believe there was a conspiracy to set up SK Foods for things they didn't do, go take it someplace else - if you carry on trying to push it here you will be prevented from editing. I really don't think I can explain Wikipedia's approach to writing any more clearly than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's just a couple of examples to illustrate some of the problems. In the latest version, you made these additions, amongst others...

"Information supplied to the newsmedia in a press release confused the public into believing that...", cited to this source. But the source is a DoJ release reporting Mr Salyer's guilty plea, and says nothing whatsoever about the public being confused. What you are doing is presenting your own personal opinion of the effects of the release on the public, and your personal opinion or analysis absolutely must not be added to Wikipedia articles.
"Another source reveals an attempt to agrandize a whistle blower in the case while engaging in an unfounded character assasination", cited to this source. But the source says nothing about agrandizing any whistle blowers or engaging in character assassination - again, that is your own personal analysis and conclusion.

Do you begin to understand what I'm trying to explain here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what BsZ! says, please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Also note that WP:IDHT and WP:CIR seem to be in play. Take a deep breath, step back, and forget everything you know about SK Foods, then go the sources and work fresh from that. If you can't do that, then I'm afraid you might well be WP:BLOCKed, as so far you are not making a convincing case that you are here to help build the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thank you so much for starting to help this page. I am starting to get it. Was not easy for me to differentiate facts that are in the actual file and whatever they put out through the news sources which, unfortunatetly is skewed to support their partnership's agenda and makes a factual encyclopedic entry difficult. Where this is thing is going is in the direction of Fast and Furious. It is just such a bad thing. But to me the WIKI effort still appears to push one side. I found this statement in the source you included - "Defense attorney Malcolm Segal said the allegations are without merit and we intend to litigate this to conclusion." The Government did actually drop the false info regarding the supposed consortium between Ingomar, Los Gatos and SK Foods formation in 2005 and dropped the actual charges. There must be a news source in the March 2012 range that discusses that the 5 7 12 13 charges all piled up were dropped down to one RICO and one Anti Trust. Something that reads unbiased is my goal. So I will definitly avoid glowing, I didn't mean to glow. Can I put up some edit ideas on this talk page and have you read them rather than put them on the actual SK Foods article until I become more proficient at this?