User talk:DinaNagapetyants

June 2016
Hello, I'm MPS1992. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Luke Harding seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear MPS1992

Please refer to the edits made by Philip Cross concerning some of the incorrect facts (I inserted a link to Luke's valid Russia visa if you had cared to look at that), which have been repeatedly removed, only to be inserted back by Julian Assange, or people associated with him. If you are so concerned about keeping articles neutral, I question why you still allow the incorrect facts Mr. Assange is repeatedly putting back into this article, which are backed up only by sources which he himself has written. If that is neutrality I suggest you check again.

On the contrary, I added a number of reputable links to several publications (the guardian, the Times, the new York Times and the Washington Post being amongst them.) and would like to add that the edits I made contained only factual information (for example, for his recent book Mr. Harding has received universal acclaim and its is therefore unfair to leave that out of this article; additionally he was the recipient of the James Cameron prize which you for some reason decided to also leave out of this page). Recognising a person's professional career achievements, is, in my opinion, not less than neutral.

If you have any more issues with this article please reply on this talk. If not, I will assume that you will reinstate my edited article.

regards, Dina Nagapetyants


 * Hello Dina, thank you for your reply. I'm sorry if my edit seemed non-neutral too. I have no association with Assange and no strong opinions on whether particular content should be included in the Wikipedia article about Harding. I do however object to a series of edits that combine removing criticism of Harding with also removing mention of a reputable outlet giving a "mixed" review of one of his publications. There really is no point in doing so -- Wikipedia saying that some publication gave a "mixed" review won't make the slightest difference to whether someone interested in the topic buys the book or not.


 * I have considerable sympathy for any and all good-faith concerns about how Wikipedia covers living people (in this case that means Harding), but it would be best for you to join the discussion on the talk page of the article, Talk:Luke Harding, about the issues you raise.


 * Reading WP:PUFFERY may be useful regarding terms to avoid: things like "prestigious" and "award-winning".


 * It would also be wise for you to refrain from assuming or alleging that anyone in particular is Assange "or people associated with him". It is entirely possible that some people who disagree with you do not fit into those categories, and it is also possible that Assange may rightly object to being accused of editing a particular Wikipedia article if he has not. MPS1992 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear MPS1992

Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate the points you have raised however they do not touch upon how I may restore the article, which was previously non-neutral (in fact, defamatory at times, which I am sure is also against Wikipedia policy) and now missing significant aspects of Mr. Harding's biography and works.

I propose to return to my edit of the article, with some significant changes: - The removal of the offensive terms 'award-winning' and 'prestigious' (though in regards to the latter, I have seen numerous Wiki articles referring to institutions, scholarships, and awards as 'prestigious' but I am willing to compromise). - Re-adding the 'mixed' review from the Telegraph; I accidentally deleted this as it made my sentence too long, and forgot to add it back in after listing the positive reviews of the book, so I agree with you enirely on needed to re-add it.

I might also add that you did not, in your reply, raise the issue of Mr. Harding's visa in the section regarding the expulsion from Russia, instead choosing to only provide the incorrect (as has now been proven) statement of Russian foreign minister Mr. Lavrov, while not including the alternative version, backed up by the provision of a photograph of Mr. Harding's valid Russian visa, to which I included a link. Additionally, there is good reason to allege who is making the recurrent defamatory edits of Mr. Harding's page, which he has been made aware of. (Again, I suggest you see edits made by Philip Cross, and consider that the only 'source' for these accusations comes from the rather unreliable Mr. Assange, and is therefore not reputable.) By re-posting this version of the page, you not only agree to keep defamatory and untrue remarks on a Wikipedia article, but refuse to acknowledge a person's achievements from 2014 onwards. As no-one else apart from you has had an issue with my edit, I urge you to consider my points and restore the version which I provided, with the changes that I have suggested now. I presume this will restore this article to the high standard of neutrality that Wikipedia aims to preserve. If you choose not to do so and keep the defamatory content on this page, other measures will be taken to remove it for good.

Regards,

D.N.


 * I am not going to rebuild your edit weeding out the puffery and re-inserting the corrections to assertions that you believe are incorrect or badly sourced. But, I have given you some hints as to how to do so yourself, and I am not going to revert any reasonable corrections of fact you might make to the article. If you make further changes and someone objects, then Talk:Luke Harding is a better place to discuss it than here. With regard to your last sentence, please be aware of WP:LEGALTHREAT -- Wikipedia editors have a very low tolerance of anything that looks like an indication on Wikipedia that particular content must be changed to avoid legal action. Using the word "defamatory" too often sometimes seems to be regarded this way too. MPS1992 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC. )

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 121.72.181.139 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)