User talk:Textgenie

Edits
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. MastCell Talk 06:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not in fact, my editing was completely neutral. Farber was criticuzed in an Op Ed piece by John Moore of Cornell, an HIV researcher, not in a "Times editorial."

Kindly correct or leave my correction. Any reversion will be viewed as non neutral. AL

December 2008
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 21:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This stricture is incorrect. The corrections added were factual corrections, not opinion. Resistance to these corrections, and replacing them with the original wording, is not factually based and misleads readers.

The New York Times editorial which condemned the Farber Harpers piece as "Dangerous Quackery" was not a Times editorial but an Op. Ed. piece without the opinion endorsement of the Times editors. The partial correction allowed from "New York Times editorial" to "New York Times opinion editorial" is welcome but insufficient. It should be properly noted that the "opinion editorial" was by an HIV researcher, and not a Times editorial opinion. Any reversion from the correction I made is inaccurate and misleads readers who expect Wikipedia to be impartial and factual.

Edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 05:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If the factual change from "New York Times opinion editorial" to "New York Times opinion editorial by an HIV researcher" is reverted then the editing of this entry will be formally disputed as flouting the standards of factual accuracy expected by the readers of Wikipedia.

Vandalism warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Nancy Padian, you may be blocked from editing. MastCell Talk 04:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)