User talk:Wan Shi Tong

Disruptive Editing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at SkyWay Group. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:The9Man The relevant section has been discussed on the talk page and has been in the article for months before it was removed by an IP with a Russian comment. There has apparently been sufficient consensus it should be there, therefore it is you who needs to give a reason as why you want to have it removed. „It is also in the article“ is not a reason. The lead section summarizes the article, therefore something that is in the lead section will of course also be in the article. There even is a Special template for when it is not. --Yanmarka (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any consensus which is having the say 'Negative criticism about the company without reliable resources are okay in the leads section'. The best matching discussion I can see about the topic is here and here. These actually raising concerns about the SPAs and negative information written from non-NPOV. Request you to send me the link if you have the same.
As per Wikipedia policy, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. MOS:BEGIN states that the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. What you do here is mentioning the controversy without any further useful information about the company, that also without reliable references.
It was there earlier is not a valid argument either, Wikipedia is a work in progress, not a competition.
- The9Man ^(Talk) 09:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP/Lead section states that „ It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.“ The fact that the international financial markets authority and the national financial regulators of 17 countries have warned of SkyWay as a scam and/or banned their financial offerings is clearly one of the most important points and a prominent controversy.

There are indeed a number of SPAs trying to keep these facts out of the article, including the one that went to your talk page to instruct you to remove the sentence from the lead section. --Yanmarka (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yanmarka How can you decide that I am SPA? With the same course of events, I can also say that SPA is you and acts in the interests of compiling negative information in the article. I do not delete these information about the prohibition of activities and I am not against it, but writing them in an introduction and in such a negative style is unacceptable.Porar234 (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that you are a SPA because you meet the definition of one. --Yanmarka (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument. If you have a large number of edits it does not mean that you cannot be SPA.Porar234 (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the reason you are editing here? --Yanmarka (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yanmarka: I don't have any issues adding controversies to the leads section with WP:RS. The problem is to add 'only' the negative criticism in the leads section without establishing the company or summarizing any other points which should be discouraged as per policies. I don't see your intentions in good faith as you are trying hard to show the negative criticism of the subject only. WP:BALANCE is important in an encyclopedia.- The9Man ^(Talk) 10:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The9Man: There are sufficient sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] and More to be found in the article and on the discussion page, especially Archive 4. and yes these are primary sources, but compatible with WP:Primary when used correctly. I can add them all in if you want having [1] through [17] after a single sentence is of course Not very aesthetically pleasing but I guess that’s the price of correct citation.

Why you don’t think my work here is in good faith is not understandable to me, I have been trying to prevent the whitewashing attempts shown by accounts as the one above to improve this encyclopedia.

Which additional information would you like to add in the lead section? --Yanmarka (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2020 (