User talk:AnnaCRittenberg

COI
Hi, If you are working for Nova Publishers then you have a conflict of interest and should better refrain from editing that article. You can propose changes on the article's talk page and if reasonable, other editors will make them for you. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randy,

Thank you for your email message. I'm confused as to why you are concerned about factual information being posted when there are sources to back it up. There is no conflict of interest if this is what you are concerned about. Not everybody shares the same point of view that you do regarding this company.

I would like to understand what you have against the History and Imprints of the Company being posted on Wikipedia? Please see Springer, if you have doubts whether Imprints (or history) should be posted. I can also give you other links.

If you are worried that this information is not factual, I would more than happy to try to get you this information through records. Just provide me your address.

Thank you. Anna


 * Are you not the same Anna Rittenberg who controls the Nova Publishers Twitter account? If you are, that would certainly be a relationship that requires you to carefully understand the conflict-of-interest rules.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Moonlet (?),

Thank you for your email message. It is indeed, one and the same! If it makes you feel better, a third party can also continue to deal with this issue.

There seems to be a conflict of interest with your posts as well, please look up the conflict of interest fact page. The purpose of Wikipedia it to produce neutral, reliably sourced data. Your deletion of posts seem to be fighting against the very same.

Adding information that is not agreed upon by you or your team seems to be an ongoing issue. And while it is flattering that you are constantly checking the Nova webpage, it seems a bit unfair and disappointing that you believe it is OK to delete factual information about a company, to the point of harassment.

Best regards, Anna


 * Anna, please read the Wikipedia policy pages that have already been linked from this talk page. This includes not only neutral point-of-view and reliable sources but also consensus and what Wikipedia is and is not.
 * Being employed by the subject of a Wikipedia article is an inherent conflict of interest that requires careful management. Having an opinion about a topic is not a conflict of interest, as long as one is careful to maintain an open mind and work for consensus.  The article talk page is the proper place for discussion if you disagree with the decisions other editors are making about the article's content.
 * By the way, as for watching pages, please see this article for how that is done quite conveniently. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Moonlet, I'm afraid you are getting a bit off topic. I initially had one question and it would be nice if you answered it. You seem to have an issue with factual information [i.e., Imprints, History] being added on the page. I would be interested to know why. I haven't gotten a good answer yet.

You seem to have an issue with neutral information. This is really unfortunate.

Many of our Editors brought complaints about you and several others on Wikipedia. This is how I got involved unfortunately. Thank you for all the links - I will read every one of them.

Best regards, Anna


 * Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. I am working towards an encyclopedia that provides neutral and factual information as much as you are, even if we disagree on the details of what that should look like.  Please be advised that "But it's true!" is not a sufficient reason to keep information on Wikipedia.  The edit of yours that I reverted today was primarily due to concerns about undue weight.
 * If you want to have further specific conversations about text that you think should or should not be in the article, please conduct those conversations on the article's talk page so that all interested editors can participate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha, I like your sense of humor, Anna. You work for Nova and you then tell "Moonlet" and its "team" that they have a COI! Anyway, I'm afraid that you don't understand what "neutral" means here on WP. It does not mean that an article must be neutral. If that were the case, the article on, say, Charles Manson, would need to include some stuff arguing why the murders he committed really needed to be done. Instead, it means that regardless of our personal opinions, we need to present neutrally what the sources say. Sources that are independent of the subject, of course. Unfortunately, in the case of Nova most sources are not very positive about your company, so in order to be "neutral", our article has to reflect the generally negative opinion of reliable sources of the company. As for the "neutral" information that you want to insert, some of it is trivial (who cares that your company hired somebody who came from Springer, people in this business move around all the time). Other stuff is unsourced and we can only present information that is verifiable. As for the list of imprints, I'm not sure which ones of these are actually imprints. Have a look at our article about that subject and if you have sources that confirm that these are, indeed, imprints, then we can add that to the article. A final point about where to post comments: I am posting here, because the discussion is actually more about your understanding of how WP works than about the article content. In general, discussions about editors belongs on their talk pages, discussion about article content on the talk pages of the articles themselves. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I do not understand your relevance to Charles Manson.

Randykitty, you continue to delete basic information from reliable sources (if you do not consider me a reliable source, posts from others are readily available in history, and whom again, you delete their information on). Although you bring it up to not be personal, it seems like for you indeed, it is personal.

Thank you, but I do not need your approval to post something although you may think that I do.

""As for the "neutral" information that you want to insert, some of it is trivial (who cares that your company hired somebody who came from Springer, people in this business move around all the time)"" Wow. Really? Please look at other publishing sites. I'm afraid that even though it's not interesting to you, people do care.

I would love to discuss more about this, but there's simply no time. Unfortunately, it seems like the basic fairness that I was expecting on the Talk Page will simply not happen. I will tell the Editors to contact their lawyers or Nova lawyers to correspond directly with Wikipedia.

I hope you continue to follow Nova.

Anna

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

AnnaCRittenberg, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Nova Science Publishers
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, you have violated the three-revert rule. I don't know how much leniency you may receive because you appear to be new, but you must undo your last edit at Nova Science Publishers or you are at risk of being blocked. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)