User talk:Uholka

Please review WP:WEIGHT
Greetings! I noticed you've added text to a number of articles. In the cases I've seen, you've indicated that they sell products that somebody else made with "illegal timber". Given that they are not directly involved in the purchase, this seems tangential enough to the companies that it would be undue weight to mention it in these articles. Further, the only source cited is a report by a NGO; there's no evidence that the media has reported in this. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but your statement is simply incorrect in as far as it refers to this article. It is not the case, here, that "they sell products that somebody else made with "illegal timber"". Schweighofer are the company directly involved in importing that illegal timber and - as stated in my contribution (which you seem not to have taken the trouble to read) - failing in their legally required 'due diligence' to assure that it is legally sourced. This is not 'tangental' at all but goes to the heart of the environmental responsibility of the company concerned and the truth or otherwise of claims it makes about itself (as eg on its website referenced in my contribution). Everything I have written is referenced in detail to the NGO report which is itself extensively referenced and exhaustively researched. You evidently have not checked it. As to the retail chains selling on the products they also have a responsibility to ensure the environmental sustainability of their products and often make claims  about their 'environmental credentials in this regard. But in any case this is not relevant here because this is a wikipedia article about the company directly involved in importing the timber. Such companies have very considerable funds to project their image of 'environmental responsibility'. Wikipedia should be a place where the public should be able to find out the facts - from people who have no company loyalty or financial interest - about issues which are a very legitimate subject of public interest.


 * That may be true of Schweighofer, but it's hardly true of Staples or Homebase. It appears, on the surface, that if a company was at all mentioned in the Earthsight report, you added text to its article—and the text looked very similar across multiple articles.
 * Given your singular focus on the topic, it starts to beg the question of whether you are an independent editor and whether your intent is to maintain the neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles—as opposed to advancing an environmental agenda. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even for noble causes like protecting the environment. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)