User talk:I-netfreedOm

You ask why I edit anonymously: it is to prevent people like you from pestering me continuously with claims of perpetual motion, UFOs, and even worse nonsense. I have a job to do. If you think I'm in an ivory tower, it is because I filter out your bull. I know a couple of other Caltechers who have established accounts and addressed claims like yours in detail. See User:Michaelbusch and User:Philosophus. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Steven M. Greer
I undid your reversion of 6 or so months of consensus editing, which noted:

''Reverted article to the version accepted after the second AfD Discussions:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven M. Greer (2nd nomination).The section of com. activities was part of the consensus''

I want to point out that an article for deletion process does not endorse the current version of the article, but merely the notability of the topic and its inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, articles are usually nominated for deletion because they're in a terrible state; reverting to the AfD version is unhelpful. See the article talk page for concerns about excessive advertising by multiple editors. Phil153 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The AfD version is a result of a consensus and thus the starting point. Dr. Greer's notability has been thoroughly analyzed in the AfD discussions. Are you willing to accept this result? If not, why not? It doesn't matter if notability has been established 6 month or a year ago. Why don't you just remove the part you feel like as an advertisement instead of labeling the whole article as such? I-netfreedOm (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What consensus? All the AfD establishes consensus for is that Greer is notable enough for an article.  And even if what you say is true, the article can be edited further by consensus, as it has been over the past 6 months.


 * I didn't add the advertising tag, someone else did. I fought it at first but others agreed, so some editing was done to tone down the advertising-like material.  Please see the talk page of the article for details.  Also note that the advertising tag doesn't mean it will get deleted, it just means that there's a bit too much commercial stuff and it needs to be cleaned up a bit.  The article is here to stay regardless of what happens.


 * You can always seek further opinions on article's talk page if you disagree with anything, or remove the advertising tag yourself if you think the current version is ok. Phil153 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW I just read the tag and it does mention deletion. But that's not what the tag is for; it's there to mark articles which sound a bit like advertising and need a bit of cleanup.  The deletion part is only for obvious spam, such as a company that cuts and paste a press release about their own product.  The Greer article is completely safe and isn't going to get deleted or put up for deletion as a result of this tag.  Phil153 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)