User talk:Sarasare

August 2015
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not a claim has been successfully rebutted. McGeddon (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear McGeddon (talk), please check the link that you have added to the Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield about her honorary degrees, it doesn't allow people that is not subscribe to the website to see the information. Thanks. Sarasare (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked it when I added it, it was the only piece of news coverage that included the phrase "32 honorary degrees". Looks like they let people read articles for free if they click through via Google News. --McGeddon (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph article
Dear --Alexbrn (talk) I would like to ask you the reason why the information added by me about the Article in the Telegraph that Susan Greenfield wrote in reply to BMJ has not been accepted? Thanks.

Conflict of interest?
Can I ask whether you have any connection to the various single-purpose accounts apparently used by Greenfield's personal assistant in the past? If you have a professional relationship with the subject of an article, you should suggest changes on the article talk page rather than making them directly - see WP:COIADVICE. --McGeddon (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear --McGeddon (talk) I'm not the same person, I don't know what you mean, but I think it be very informative to add all the possible sources of the conflict development so I will suggest the change on the article talk page. Thanks for the recommendation.


 * Could I ask that you declare precisely what your connection with Susan Greenfield is. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a supporter and I would like to have people as more informed as possible about the debate from both sides, that's why Wikipedia is so good :-) Thanks.
 * Hmm, that's rather unclear. Please be explicit: do you have any personal or professional connection to Greenfield of any kind? The fact you refer to her as 'Susan' seems rather familiar. As regards 'both sides' we must avoid the WP:GEVAL fallacy: Greenfield's notions are at odds with mainstream science. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Alexbrn , sorry I didn't mean both sides in a bad way, I meant all the opinions about the case, and all the available media. I work alongside Susan and I would like to know if there is any way I can reference the Telegraph article. Thanks.

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear McGeddon, I'm sorry to see this message. I don't have more than one account, it is my first time on Wikipedia.


 * You should state this at the Sockpuppet investigations/One1two2three3. The fact is that somebody claiming to be Greenfield's personal assistant has been found to be using multiple accounts deceptively in the past, for edits similar to those you have made since joining the project recently, and Wikipedia regards sockpuppetry as a "serious breach of community trust". --McGeddon (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)