User talk:TheOzz

Babywise
I am new to Wikipedia. I am asking for with the Babywise article. I am bias in favor of Babywise. I manage web sites that promote Babywise and other books by the authors. I am also friends with the Gary Ezzo who is one of the authors of Babywise.

As for the help that I am asking for, I would be more than happy to send a free copy of the book Babywise to any editor with lots of Wikipedia experience and a true NPOV. I believe it will be difficult to edit this article without knowledge of what the book actually says. Most of the claims made against Babywise are made by people who support parenting philosophies in line with strict demand feeding of infants which the book Babywise openly speaks out against. An experienced editor without bias for or against demand feeding or the Babywise parent directed feeding (PDF) would be best.

I only created an account on Wikipedia because I found an article page on Babywise that was over a year old and was obviously written by a critic of the book. The content of the article was not written from a NPOV and was greatly slanted towards the criticisms that have been propagated on the Internet by a handful of people for over a decade now. When I found the article I determined that the most active editor in the first year is part of a small group of people who have gone as far as to create web sites dedicated to discrediting Babywise, the book's authors, and other books written by the authors. Most of the early links added to the Babywise article pointed to these sites critical of the book. It took five months into the history of the article before a single link supporting the book was added.

One Wikipedia user is claiming that I have been out of line on the Talk:Babywise. The person making these claims of me being out of line has not gone as far as to openly identify herself as bias against Babywise. She is in fact a open critic of the book and a major contributor to web sites critical of Babywise and its authors as mentioned above.

In closing I will restate what I said recently on the Talk:Babywise:

I suggest that we "keep the arguments concerning "Babyeise" out of Wikipedia. I would like to see an editor with a truly NPOV rip out the bulk of the controversy section on the basis of WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SELFPUB.  I would argue that the group of legitimate critics who have actually read any of GFI material cover to cover is a tiny minority in relation to those who are pleased with their success with "Babywise" and other GFI publications.  I believe that stating that there has been some criticism of "Babywise" is fair, but building a detailed arguments to support or debunk those criticisms within this article is not in line with the spirit of what Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLEGROUND)."


 * To link to talkpages, use Talk:Babywise. As far as NPOV goes, as long as you're both adding neutral (and not supportive) information and links, you should be fine. It doesn't mean "I'll add the positive stuff, you add the negative stuff"... all the information should be neutral. If there's a conflict, then note that there is a conflict and neutrally present the points of either sides, neither expounding on strengths or attacking weaknesses. Part of the problem with NPOV is that those articles that you most want to edit are the ones most likely to get you into trouble when you edit them. :) Anywho, hope that helps. ~Kylu ( u | t )  03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: your mail, I'd suggest sharing the advice with the other editor involved and don't try to "scrub" any previous talkpage statements you made, except perhaps to remove any ad hominem attacks or incivility you may have added mistakenly (if any.) Making mistakes is fine, as long as we learn from them. :) If you could, try to get some sort of rapport going with the opposing editor and try to find the neutral compromise that should be on the page. If you're willing to compromise and the other party is not, you'll want to investigate dispute resolution options. I'd probably say, from my time here, that the trick to surviving on Wikipedia is growing an insanely thick skin and avoiding any semblance of impropriety. I'm sure eventually someone more cynical will follow along and "correct" me. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  00:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz,

I am joining Kylu in hoping you will remove any ad hominem attacks and incivility in your contributions to the Babywise Talk page, and I am also adding my request that you stop "outing" an editor who clearly does not want her personal name shared as you have repeatedly done. That talk page is for working on the article, not discussing persons. The no-personal-attacks guideline clearly says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I would like to suggest that you go ahead and edit your posts where you have made the discussion about a contributor.

If you're not seeing any ad hominem attacks or incivility in your writing, perhaps Kylu would be willing to give you his impressions a little more specifically.

Taketime (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Outing
Hi TheOzz, I'm responding to a post at WP:WQA. Please note that outing other editors on Wikipedia is typically considered harassment. Suggesting that editors have been convicted of crimes, etc., is also a violation of our policies. (If you feel that someone has a conflict of interest, I suggest you try the conflict of interest noticeboard rather than persist in behavior that will cause you to be blocked from editing). Thank you. -- B figura (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)