User talk:Patrick O'Redondo

My business address is in Lawndale CA 90260 USA

Patrick O&#39;Redondo 19:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Patrick, I did not painstakingly reverse all of your edits one by one. I used the revert function to 'roll back' the article to how it was before you edited it. I did this because another editor, User:SliceNYC noticed that the page now had some problems. Specifcally he tagged the article:
 * The current version of the article or section reads like an advertisement.
 * This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.
 * The neutrality of this article is disputed.
 * This article may not comply with the content policies of Wikipedia.

Now I hate, I really hate, big ugly content tags like the ones that were placed on the article. But you can't just remove/ignore them. You have to fix the problem. So I looked at the article and lo and behold I fully agreed with User:SliceNYC that there were statements there that were informal, which didn't seem neutral with respect to waterbeds, airbeds and innersprung beds, and in fact sounded like an advertisement. A key example: A bold statement that airbeds are less comfortable than waterbeds is an opinion. It is not NPOV (neutral point of view). It is also unverified - if you had cited some research eg "95 out of 100 adults rate waterbeds more comfortable than airbeds" then it would be verified, non-original research and therefore fine. Lastly it sounds exactly like something I would expect to hear from a salesperson trying to sell me on the idea of a waterbed.
 * "Manufacturers of air beds often compare them to waterbeds, suggesting that an air bed is comparable if not more comfortable. They aren’t. It’s not possible to float on an air bed."

I happen to agree with you that airbeds are less comfortable than waterbeds. But in a Wikipedia context, the best you could do is an NPOV statement such as "Many people feel that airbeds are less comfortable than waterbeds" and hope that is obvious enough for people not to ask you to cite a source.

Now you can see that I could have edited your changes to make them NPOV, verifiable, etc. And I would be more than happy for you to go back and do that yourself. But I have limited time, as does everyone else on this planet, and the easiest, fastest way to fix the NPOV tone of the article was to revert back to the version which didn't contain NPOV edits from a former waterbed industry editor.

Your experience in the industry could be really useful, I think you could add a lot to the article. But edits must be NPOV, and formal in tone. It would also be nice if they could be verififed.

For example, you placed two sections labelled "rebuttal" in the article. This is the wrong tone for an encyclopedia article. If your version of events/facts is correct, then you won't have to rebut the other side, you can simply state your sources to prove your version (eg a biography of Hall, reference to blogs/webpages by other waterberd professionals, etc). The article should not be a running argument between two sides/ideas, it sould be a clear, concise statement of the known facts, which doesn't sound like an advertising brochure.

Another example: If it is a popular myth that waterbeds weigh a lot, you don't want one paragraph stating the myth and then another paragraph rebutting the myth. It sounds bad. A single integrated paragraph stating the facts and noting the myth, while refuting it, would be much better.

To conclude, my edits were not intended to be a personal affront to you, Patrick (although I know it must have felt like one!). I simply wished to switch the article back to its previous NPOV, formal, non-advertisement state. My challenge to you is to go back and put your edits back into the article - while making them the correct tone, formality and NPOV (verified would be great also ...). Happy editing!

Ppe42 23:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)