User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2014/June

Inappropriate closure of RfC
You did a speedy close of my RfC on the Ta-Nehisi Coates Talk page. I want to know why you couldn't have let it play out for the standard 7 days? I started it based on a suggestion from an involved admin. As a speedy closer, I presume you knew the previous edit had 3 editors supporting, 3 opposed, meaning the correct next step was an RfC. Also, the edit before that had 2 supporting, 1 opposed, with 1 ambiguous. So as you can see, there is genuine difference of opinion over what consensus is. In light of these facts, why did you close the discussion? If you were not aware of the split over consensus, you should not have closed. If you were aware of it, you should not have closed. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC
Let's just leave it open for one week so it's finally clear, once and for all, what the answer is, and if it gets pushed beyond that... seriously, literally, time for another topic ban discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you include the RfC tag when you reopened it? Are you deliberately trying to prevent other editors who might disagree with you from knowing about this?  Useitorloseit (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And now you're assuming bad faith.
 * You haven't answered my question - do you intend to accept community consensus in this RfC and drop the matter permanently once it closes? The community consensus is clear and you don't get to re-run discussions until you get the answer you want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have to assume - from your prior dishonest statements about consensus on noticeboards, I know. This could have been over long ago but for your actions.  Useitorloseit (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Advocacy
It is not cool by Wikipedia standards to advocate for specific political views. Cwobeel (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not engaging in any political advocacy. That is a lie.  I asked you for a reliable source to support your personal opinion and, so far, you have not provided one.  Please do not make up false premises and focus on the content of the article only.--NK (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I have learned to recognize editors like you; there is no point in engaging in discussions as it is a bloody waste of time. Cwobeel (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content at Russell Targ
Greetings. This edit
 * 12:28, 2 June 2014 "Personal life: rm material that is not verifiable. There are no sources available for these items."

removed the fact Russell and Joan Targ had two sons and their names. This fact is plainly present in the source given,

I placed the cn tag as there was no source for the two son's professions. This edit
 * 14:33, 2 June 2014 "rm c=material not in provided source"

removed the facts that Elisabeth Targ was a psychiatrist and parapsychologist. These facts are plainly present in the source(s) given,

Why would you allege content was not supported by the sources when it clearly is? If you are unable to access a source behind a paywall it is not appropriate to remove the content it supports but to ask for assistance in verification (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). But beyond that you removed content alleging it was not in sources when it was in provided inline sources that are freely accessible, can you explain this behavior? - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss in the article's talk page. Cwobeel (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As this discussion is specifically about your behavior as an editor it is more appropriate here. The content related issues with the article have been addressed through edits to the article and their edit summaries. Content related discussion can certainly take place on the articles talk page if needed. My question here is why you as an editor would remove content with misleading edit summaries. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * MrBill: I don;t need you to come here and lecture me. If you have dispute on my editing that article, do it on talk page, not here. Cwobeel (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please use accurate edit summaries. Please do not remove sourced content claiming it is not sourced. Thank you. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Targ PhD
TAke a look at the Talk page please! Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did! Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment over on the talk page. We all get a little worked up, and I certainly did. I posted a similar comment over on the Talk page, but due to some glitch in the partial protection there I'm sometimes finding that my posts don't show up. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Amanda and Jerad Miller for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amanda and Jerad Miller is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Amanda and Jerad Miller until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. damiens.rf 18:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Glad to be of help. Cwobeel   (talk)  01:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ian Gow
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ian Gow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is serious
I have not sent you any emails as I don't have email enabled in my account. It will explain a lot is someone is impersonating me. How can this have happened? Cwobeel  (talk)  23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you at least make the username known so it can be blocked? If that user impersonated and misused email once, he may do that again. Cwobeel  (talk)  21:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for a wiki break because of drama...
I mean, if you don't want to edit, don't edit. However, the current drama is almost done.Casprings (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I am still in shock that someone would impersonate me to escalate a dispute by sending nasty emails to BlueSalix using my name. I mean, who would do something like that? Maybe BlueSalix has "wiki-enemies" that will stoop that low to upset him? I have asked BlueSalix to provide some evidence so that this can be investigated but he refused. At least he could make the username known so that it can be blocked and a CU filed to see who was behind it. I am still at a loss on what learnings I can extract from all this, so far I am drawing a blank. Cwobeel   (talk)  19:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want my opinion, is full of it.  I think he/she made up the email.  I think that is BS.  You should report it to WP/N again and demand an investigation.  If nothing happens, I would file at WP:ARBCOM.  They deal with conduct and this to me is pretty serious misconduct. Casprings (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I am not sure I want to get into an ArbCom review at this time, but I will consider it if does not produce any evidence. I will give him/her some time to consider the implications of not producing evidence.  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cwobeel. I see you have denied sending some e-mails, several times on this page and also on ANI, but I can't find where BlueSalix made the accusation. (If it was on ANI, it may well have been removed.) Can you enlighten me with a diff? Also of any response BS may have made to your denial. I agree with Casprings that it's serious and you should pursue it if you don't get any satisfaction (such as either evidence or a proper formal withdrawal of the accusation). Since you don't have Wikipedia e-mail enabled and BS doesn't either (!), I see several technical difficulties with the idea that you e-mailed him/her and with the idea that somebody impersonated you to do so. (There are technical difficulties with their unawareness of having been blocked by me, too, so there seems to be a bit of a pattern. The I-was-never-blocked thing is pretty harmless IMO — more just odd — but saying you sent abusive e-mails is not.) Bishonen &#124; talk 08:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Update: Never mind about the diffs, I've found them (with some effort, because of BS's habit of not using edit summaries). Indeed, I've posted them on ANI. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Thank you, I see in your post at AN/I that you are asking BlueSalix to produce evidence or retract his accusation, but I think retracting is not good enough. If he has evidence that an editor spoofed my name and sent him nasty emails to poison the well between him and me during a heated debate, the impersonating editor's account should be blocked so it does not happen again. At least he should produce the name of the user account from which the email was sent, which must be a variation of my username if he believed so easily that it was me. . Cwobeel   (talk)  13:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Sensational developments. See the posts following mine in the re-branded thread Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, at the end. If you had e-mail enabled, I would at this point say something to you in confidence. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the offer, but I don't want to enable email and prefer transparent communications. My take is that BlueSalix was in a frame of mind in which he saw shadows when there were none, and for whatever reason I triggered an unwarranted response from him and his following accusation. That is the only explanation I can find for his highly aggressive tone in that AN/I discussion and his inability to accept apologies made in good faith. All he needs to do is to apologize for his mistake, which I will accept in good faith .  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't anything important anyway. But as far as I can understand, BlueSalix is (sort of) saying it's not a mistake. Did you read the ANI thread I indicated? It's all there. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Well, if he says it is was not a mistake, then he will be proven wrong. He still has time to apologize and put this behind. . Cwobeel   (talk)  15:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

, It seems unlikely that BlueSalix will issue an apology/retraction/explanation. Should I just forget all this? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems unlikely, but no, you should by no means forget it, Cwobeel. There isn't anything you can do at this point, but don't forget it, and also don't worry. I just need to give him/her a little more time to send the promised e-mail to me, or to otherwise resolve not only the accusations but also the mysterious hints about you and Mosfetfaser. I can hardly assume that they have left Wikipedia after a mere 24 hours, even though I suspect that's what's happened. If there's nothing from them in another 24, I'll write a note on their page, and a note for you here that'll make it clear to everybody that there was never anything in the accusations. Something you can refer to in the unlikely event that the subject ever comes up in the future. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

No truth in accusations
Hi, Cwobeel. It has become obvious that the allegations by BlueSalix that you had sent abusive e-mails were false, and I've put a note on their page to that effect. Your name has been completely cleared, and I'm sorry you had to be subjected to that. In case anybody should throw the accusation in your face at a later date, when the ANI brouhaha has been forgotten, please just refer them to this post — keep a bookmark to it — and refer them to me for the circumstances. I really don't think it will become necessary, though. I hardly think anybody believed it to begin with, and in any case Wikipedia moves on. Happy editing, and please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your help on this. I am still puzzled by BlueSalix's behavior and why it is so hard form him/her to issue a simple apology for what seems to be a mistake made in the heat of things. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Very kind of you. Thanks! -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD query
Before nominating articles for deletion, are you carrying out the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE (especially step D)? -- Neil N  talk to me  16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah, I think I was too quick with that one. A better course of action would have been to redirect to List of Illinois companies -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheerwine's Captain Morgan endorsement
Hello Cwobeel. I recently edited the Cheerwine wiki page so that the sentence that said: > Cheerwine pairs well with Captain Morgan, otherwise known as the "Whining Pirate." Instead said something like > Cheerwine is often mixed with Captain Morgan to make a drink known as the "Whining Pirate." The former is subjective, and smacks of endorsement. It smells like something put in the page by a marketer; a quick websearch for the 'whining pirate' (sans quotes) brings up nothing about cocktails on the first page. My edit was conservative, removed no information except the subjective judgement of an unknown personality, and left the dubious endorsement in place only slightly nerfed. I don't know what you thought you improved by reverting my effort, but I encourage you to think again. I don't have wikipedia editing as a hobby, and don't care to get involved if I'm going to be dealing with reverts on something as un-revert-worthy as this. Instead, I encourage you to do two things. 1) Edit that sentence yourself to remove the endorsement. Perhaps you could write something like "The Cheerwine company has said that the only acceptable alcoholic mixer for...Captain Morgan" (This may be true) or some other phrase that does not equal saying "Wikipedia says that these things taste good when mixed together" (unambiguously subjective and unambiguously an endorsement; well done.) 2) Consider having a little more input and a little more care as to what you revert. If you're reverting things just because they seem to not improve things, perhaps it's because you're not paying attention, didn't take the time to read carefully, or are biased? Or perhaps you, in that particular instance, are none of those things and had a good reason that you didn't explain. As a result, I'm annoyed and, rather than waste more time, I'm leaving you with your ball, giving you a lecture on how you're not making Wikipedia any friends OR improvements here, and going back to my own pastimes. I don't need or want a response. I just encourage you to consider the above. 72.130.91.250 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)FFFFFF

Please comment on Talk:United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Dave Brat
Hi, I'd appreciate if you could do a partial revert instead of reverting wholesale the four edits I made, two of which were clearly noncontroversial. I'm also confused - in what way did moving things around to a more logical order constitute "editorializing content"?  Λυδ α  cιτγ  04:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The editorializing is obvious. You first present the quote of the interview, which was the last event in the chronology, and then used "however" to link back a story about how Cantor characterize Brat as a liberal professor. That is a great example of editorializing, which we are not supposed to do as editors. I will try to do a partial restore. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry
I understand that the Yank Barry article has quite the background, and am only intending to help. The community can feel free to not proceed with my edit requests, but I do feel that there is a certain responsibility to WP:BLP that is not upheld when well sourced material is ignored. You might notice that my requests are not all completely positive too... NewIsBetter (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am coming to you for help as well. There are several reasons why I've come to you, but number one is, I don't know how to contact admin. It is not my goal or purpose to get anyone blocked but to try and get help with the obvious double standard that exists at the Yank Barry page. You have been very helpful in the past and you seem to want to try and improve the page. As I've said all along, I'm not campaigning for anything that is untrue to be in the article, and like the editor above I've never campaigned to keep the negative out. I just believe all Wikipedia topics should have the same rules and if something is 100% okay on every other page then it shouldn't be censored on the YB page. I'm not talking about the Nobel Peace Prize nominations, (I know you and Rich took care of that on Malala's page but only after I had to bring up the double standard 10 times) if something is a no no everywhere then it should be a no no on the YB page. I feel like, from an academic perspective (I did go to school to be a social studies teacher, so a lot of my studies were in research and writing), all topics should have the same set of rules and editors personal feelings about the topic should not be brought to the table. I'm asking for your help because you seem to be a solid editor and because you've helped me in the past. I know you have been down the admin road before, so if you want nothing to do with me or helping me improve the Yank Barry page, please just give me the information to bring this to the administration's attention. Thank you and good day.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * : There is no need to contact an admin, but if you want to resolve the dispute and get some help, you can follow the steps suggested in the dispute resolution process of Wikipedia Cwobeel   (talk)  17:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is what I'm trying to do. See ask for editor assistance.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are beyond that. Take further steps as suggested at WP:DR. Cwobeel   (talk)  17:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking you this question because you seem to be an experienced and fair editor. Can you, honestly, read the comments Ubikwit has made on the Yank Barry page and say he is coming from WP:NPOV? I came to you for help about going to admin so I could get out in front of this situation, and he has now threatened to take me to admin. I do not appreciate the accusations he has made towards me. I do not believe he is a neutral editor. If you can read everything he has posted and still say he is neutral then, I guess, disregard this. If his comments do not seem to be coming from a neutral perspective then I, again, ask you for your help. I am new to Wikipedia and I feel like I'm being picked on by the bully at recess and I don't know what to do. Obviously, fighting is not the answer. Flies, vinegar, honey, etc. Please help me or direct me towards someone who can. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We all have our POVs, but that is not the issue; the issue is can we edit from an NPOV perspective?. As long as you continue discussing the editor rather that the edits, you will get nowhere in Wikipedia. My suggestion to you: drop completely from your arguments any assessments on the motivations, beliefs or intentions of fellow editors. Just drop it and focus your arguments exclusively on the merits of the argument. One way to see the other person's point of view is to use the "Hasidic" method: Before you make your arguments about your position, you have to be able to make the arguments of your opponent's position in a debate. In Wikipedia that is called Writing for the opponent. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I always appreciate your advice. Some of the things you suggest I have already read, but you mentioning it reinforces I'm on the right path. I guess what I'm asking you is do you think he is editing from a NPOV? I do not believe he is. I do not think it's right and I do not think it has a place in an encyclopedia. I have said, if this were an Op-Ed, then, sure, bash Yank Barry all you want. This is not an Op-Ed, it's an encyclopedia. I don' know if I have mentioned this or not but my degree and studies are heavily based in research and writing, so I am experienced. In my opinion, the facts should be told, in as much detail as possible, and the reader is to make up their own mind and form their own opinions of the topic, in an encyclopedia. I will heed your advice, but it is very disturbing to see an editor who's is blatantly not coming from a neutral point of view, and said editor is being allowed to effect an article in a negative way. It bothers me greatly or I wouldn't get upset and I would not have asked you and other editors for help. I'm going to try the flies and vinegar and honey but I am skeptical of that approach with an editor who is not neutral. I don't think I'm going to far out on a limb in saying that some editors don't like Yank Barry. I have no idea why that is, but it is obvious. I know you have to see it. The question is can they edit from a neutral point of view and I believe this editor can not. VQuakr, has reverted my work. You do not see me having problems with him. In fact I have gone to him for help. I'm pretty sure he doesn't like me, but we can have a discussion like adults. So my issue with Ubikwit is not that he reverts my work, but that I do not believe he is coming from a neutral point of view. I assume good faith of everyone and have since day one, even when I was not afforded that right, but I think we are past that now. The comments and the opinions are obviously not WP:NPOV. Thanks for the advice. Have a good day, I'm out, I can't take anymore Wikipedia right now. Thanks again.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Even though I feel it's not right, I'm going to take the high road. I'm done with that guy. All I ask is he does not make accusations towards me. Should be fair enough. I'm trying the vinegar and honey approach because I trust you. I hope you're right.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As we've covered, I respect you as an editor. My question is why do you believe this is a PR or Puff piece? I have, personally, tried to be extremely careful not to contribute anything to the article that is promotional and have clarified all promotional pieces. I know it was agreed to keep as a page, but I'm curious as to what sent you down that path in the first place? I do not see this article as having an ounce of puff. To the contrary this article has the strictest puff police of any article I've seen. Just curious. I agree with user BarrelProof and his assessment. I have NEVER advocating adding anything to the article that is not a fact. Thanks and have a great day.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Still think I'm crazy about the concerns I have voiced to you? It's pretty clear the subject of the article feels there is a problem. There is absolutely no arguing that there is a lack of good faith problem, there is a WP:NPOV problem, and there is a huge double standard problem. I'm going to intently watch how this plays out, but I'm sticking with my vinegar and honey approach on the talk page and will still only contribute FACTS to the article. Have a nice day.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Number one, I don't only edit the Yank Barry page. Please don't make statements about me when you don't have your facts straight. Number two, I have only made ONE edit to the Yank Barry article. I have made more edits to the JORDAN BURROUGHS article than I have the Yank Barry article. I am not a single purpose account and I'm sick of being called that because I won't say Yank Barry is a bad person. The only reason I keep coming back to this page is because of behavior like this, from the very beginning, and when I get upset at said behavior then it is turned around on me as the person who is in the wrong. All I wanted to do was help out and I've been treated absolutely horribly!--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Grow a bit of thick skin... We are here to write an encyclopedia. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democracy & Nature, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Ely and David Freeman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Metamodernism
The large portions I cut had all failed to meet WP:RS as the only citations cited were personal blogs (a few of which were just default-wordpress-theme, abandoned over a year ago kind of blogs). It seems as though the page in question is being maintained by the owners of metamodernism.com, which was (and may still be) the most cited source on the page (which, once more, in no way passes WP:RS), thus provokes other issues with WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:COI, etc. felt  _   friend  18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just tag with cn and allow editors some time to provide sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue wasn't that the information was unsourced, it was that everything I had removed used a personal blog (most likely added to the article by the owner of said site) as a source. felt  _   friend  21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * remove the bad source and add cn. If no RS are provided in a few days, then delete... It will give editors a chance to look for these sources, and avoid an edit war. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am in receipt of your request to contact you regarding the recent edit to the Oxford Round Table Wikipedia page. I assure you that we are legitimate source and would like to prove it to you if there is a way to do so. Please advise as to providing you verification and information to this end.

For several years, the Oxford Round Table has been underattack by Wikipedia vandals, two pseudonyms in particular known as Nomoskedasticity and Pokey5945. These two individuals, we believe, are separate and distinct individuals who may or may not work together. To make a long story short, the motivations of these two individuals are separate and distinct as well, but they both have in obsession in vendetta against Dr. Kern Alexander and F. King Alexander who are connected to the Oxford Round Table.

The information that these two individuals provide to Wikipedia is biased, inaccurate, devoid of context, and always negative in attacking the company.

The recent edits by me and members of the board of the Oxford Round Table itself were attempts to put a stop to their activities and to correct the information about the Oxford Round Table.

We intend to insert additional accurate information about the Oxford Round Table including its history, membership, and current activities.

Again, we are willing to provide you sources to verify this information, if you could instruct us how to do so.

Thank you for your attention, and we would appreciate it, if you would assist us in doing the right thing. Perhaps, it would be important to point out that the Wikipedia page for the Oxford Round Table was created not by the company but by Nomoskedasticity.

We will await your response, but we would like to edit the page immediately.

Sincerely, Justicentruth_0616 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicentruth 0616 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oxford Round Table was created by, not by me. Not that it would be a bad thing if I had created it…  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  11:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the creation of the Oxford Round Table Page on Wikipedia, we would like to clarify though drstones may have created the page in 2007, Nomoskedasticity has originated nothing but negative commentary on the Oxford Round Table since that time. Also, please let us know which part of my edit was uncomfortable for you to remove. If it was the controversy/litigation part of the page, we would like to provide you with accurate information about that issue/dispute for which we have the official records and the Court's order. Justicentruth_0616 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicentruth 0616 (talk • contribs)
 * I think this would be better discussed on that article's talk page. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pahlavi dynasty
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pahlavi dynasty. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Lhoknga
Hi

You removed my edit on Lhoknga. Would it be ok to just have a short line on the page such as:

Lhoknga has recovered since the tsunami and is becoming increasingly popular for kitesurfing during the windy season which is May until September.

We want the location be be highlighted more positively. thanks Joanna

Joannadee (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. That is the exact reason why I removed your addition to that article. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:V. Basically, we can't use Wikipedia for advocating our views. We can only report what reliable sources say about a subject. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)