User talk:Wenttomowameadow

xkcd link

You don't "revert" edits that have been made some time ago, before other edits and which are clearly not vandalism. Furthermore, you can't edit that link back in. Go to the article and look at the talk page. The onus is on you to show how the link is within guidelines before it's added, and at this point that's clearly not going to happen. Disparaging other people's edits by treating them like common vandalism is not the way to procede. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your removal seems to have been done without consensus. In the wikipedia addition and removal is done with consensus. This link seems to have been a long standing one, and hence requires consensus to remove. A previous poll was unable to find consensus to remove it.Rememberway (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a vote like American Idol. The comic is against guidelines, so the only way it can be included is if an agreement can be reached on why it should be a special case. You don't need reasons to keep things out of articles, you need reasons to include them. That's beyond the point and has been discussed on the article; the issue here is that you shouldn't be reverting valid changes for no reason with no explanation, particularly not to include content which is against guidelines. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines are not hard rules. Consensus is a hard rule. There is clearly no consensus to remove it. And please do not use the minor flag when reverting edits; it seems to me to deliberately implying disdain and disregard for other editors points of view, and pretty much does constitute a personal attack.Rememberway (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

My response to every point is "No it doesn't". Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Given your general attitude, so does that reply.Rememberway (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

None of this is heated or personal. Please stop trying to make it look that way and instead concentrate on the issues. We have nothing more to discuss. If you want to continue adding content against generally excepted standards without consensus then you'll no doubt hear from other people too. NB: If you're embarrassed about a talk page conversation then please let me know before you decide to move it to my page in the future. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted it on your page, because if other people complain about your behaviour then it's easier for them to find in the talk page history.Rememberway (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The way to complain about somebody's behaviour is to file a complaint, rather than making desperate passive-aggressive claims that they're misbehaving, otherwise it looks like you're playing silly little games. Enough nonsense now. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

See WP:3RR. Your stated intention "I will revert again and request that the article is temporarily locked next time" is probably not as good an idea as using the discussion page at Talk:Centrifugal_force_(rotating_reference_frame). Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it twice in the past 24 hours and that would have made it my third. Given that you're a vocal participant and just made the same revert as the "opposing" reverter, could you explain the validity in warning me for reverting something twice? This is ridiculous. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The warning may have been a bit premature, but not ridiculous, I think. The point is that there's a genuine good case for the validity of an external link to a very relevant technical cartoon, and you shouldn't just be reverting. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through that argument here again, but you'll notice that there are many editors who think that the comic shouldn't be there at all, and I doubt that you'd find it acceptable behaviour if they gave you warnings for adding it back in. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Fitzcarraldo147

Sense of humour bypass? How do you find these edits? Fitzcarraldo147 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to show off what we think is funny. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiShares

Hello .. haven't been on Wiki in awhile.. sorry to see you have completely reverted the contribution of my article on the buzz all over facebook and online at Peta regarding Lipton research. Perhaps asking for more references.. and giving it a moment would have been more productive. Further.. I notice you looked up my other contribution found it and reverted it. That was a bit stalky. Thanks for the warm welcome back. Please put back the edits and if you like modify them and perhaps find another source.. or simply request I find more. Your swift deletion of user contributions is off putting, and will deter other contributors, which I am sure you did not intend. Please assist in the facts now subverted by putting them back in place, your edits welcome. Thank you for the prompt and courteous review of your conduct. --WikiShares (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I had to revert your edits immediately because they had content that is potentially damaging and absolutely cannot be published here without proper third-party coverage (note: Facebook and PETA will never be acceptable sources for this). It's not stalky to check somebody's other edits when they have posted something contentious. I won't be restoring your edits for obvious reasons, and I won't support any attempt by you to restore them. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You mention not having been here for a while; do you have a second account? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Lipton content is a terrible misuse of Wikipedia. It is a blatant advertisement listing products and showing a greenhouse in association with testing the healing property of teas. What are the criteria for tea advertisements? Global corporation status? Notable therefore worthy of running blatant propaganda for a company which to this point did not matter, but now it seems like Wikipedia in this case is like commercial media. You have done nothing about the advertising and have likely unintentionally censored a very large well known groups criticisms. To keep Wikipedia what it is intended, the same application to diligence or more should be placed on corporate marketing which we are saturated with elsewhere. I will look for a more appropriate way to add the reference back regarding recent criticisms by the Peta group. Please look for a way to discourage the product line listing of non notable variations of teas. That might be the way to parse sentences if you will. The company is notable for tea, it's various teas are not particularly worthy of line by line selling. Also I am not paranoid, but would companies be hiring people to be editors on Wikipedia as they hire bloggers to obliterate criticism, with blatant nonsense marketing content that does well on search engines? I say this to make aware the importance of not allowing marketing by corporations on Wiki while censoring less experienced Wiki contributors of their criticism comments. Wiki does not intend to allow any global company the right to run informercials. Only the relevance of the company should be allowed less the smaller companies not noteworthy be banished of the same thing. It is not appropriate either way. Cannot find my password on an account from last year. Don't worry too much, i was not criticizing Lipton or other privledged entities. It doesn't matter. Facebook is notifying millions of the controversy and will bring the appropriate pressure to bear on those that mutilate animals for selling of their teas. I was not pitching the Peta angle, though it is important morally. I do want the very well known controversy noted since the pitching of it's laboratory made it more fair game.

Merry Christmas - Sincerely, --WikiShares (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The way to fix that is not to add in a campaign by PETA. You should note that I've already removed a lot of advertising and obvious positive P.R. from that article, so you're complaining to the wrong person. If you want to help, familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's rules and then remove unsuitable content in the Lipton articles. Bear in mind that this won't help you get your PETA campaign published here. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The addition of content should not be deemed relevant only if coincides with mass media coverage. That is a fundamental error in determining source value as it is common knowledge that conflicts of interest exist with mass media and large corporate entities. That being stated, the information is still relevant. The key points not to lose site of are that Wikipedia is a live encylcopedia not last years print volume. Some times it is possible that it dares to print new factual information. This is what this is by the way. The facts are real and it is the case that Lipton is amid a public relations controversy for having been associated with an animal testing blunder to bolster it's healing claims. There are tons of references to it if you search google, and thousands have already written the company in protest. It is important to examine the reluctance of more than one of the editors to recognize new events as they are happening without too much caution or proclivity to treat as unfounded unless reported via mass commercial media. That is not to say that every blogger with an opinion is a source. But in some cases one person with the truth is the majority - a quote I enjoy. Now look, I am certainly glad you are diligently attending the quality of the article so that they do not continue marketing on Wikipedia. However the fact remains that more and more online publishers are discussing the animal testing backlash. It is wrong to ban publishing of what is a fact, that allegations are being made criticizing the companies use of animal testing. The Peta campaign you refer to as "your" is not mine, but is not a banned source of content either. Instead of arguing that point, I immediately took the suggestion of the other editor and cited other sources and vastly reduced the contribution. By ignoring of anything but commercial advertising as sources, and interfering with contributions you dissaprove of, you are inadvertantly doing Wikipedia a disservice. If you can assist in republishing the newly emerging criticisms as listed on the Discovery Channels green website along with other vegetarian sites, and Peta as well - it would be the proper thing to do. One should not rationalize the thwarting of information they find controversial. If it is such a bad thing to discuss then perhaps Lipton should not have engaged in practices that would cause such concern by the public. I would really like to get some rest on the matter but find myself outnumbered possibly outwitted by the beauacracy of publishing a few lines about a company that has become the target of animal rights groups for it's research practices for non medical purposes. Those are simply the relevant facts of the day. It is for Lipton to change the facts, not the facts to be changed for Lipton. I like the tea, I really do. --WikiShares (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

By its own admission Wikipedia isn't about truth, and should only reflect the version of the world put forward by what are considered to be reliable sources. It's for that reason that you can't make the edit you want to make. I understand that Wikipedia is a massive, influential source of information and so it seems right to use it as a noticeboard for moral issues, but treating it that way demonstrates a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Until the issue has significant coverage in the media it can't be included, and you'll be wasting your time trying to get it in there. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Meadow, very nice job in cleaning up the Lipton article. Wikishares, please stop accusing other editors of "censorship" when all they're asking for is actual reliable secondary sources indicating there is actually a controversy to discuss. A quick google search doesn't turn up any other than PETA and the Examiner, neither of which are sufficient to establish notability of a noteworthy controversy. "One person with the truth is a majority" is a fallacy when you're building an encyclopedia, sorry. Dayewalker (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wentomowameadow, you did a very nice job of cleaning up the article. Not sure if you noticed the primary writer has done similar work on other Unilever brands. Dayewalker, wikipedia considers Planet Green, a Discovery channel website notable. See the internal article. Had you read the last posting with the references updated, or the editorial assistance page, which you clearly missed you would have seen the credible source. That was the source of the article read, not Peta. Here is the referencehttp://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/lipton-really-testing-on-animals.html By not reading the new reference, and falsely claiming that it was not referenced you are making an error and wrongfully justifying the removal of content. The debate is now changing to the challenging the credibility of the Discovery Channel website editor Rachel Cernansky which has contributed multiple articles on much more than Lipton and it's new controversy. So the new request should be whether or not the reference at Discovery Channels online website is credible. Perhaps you have a media source you on behalf of Wikipedia, demand cover a matter before it be permitted to be printed? What channel shall I set the TV to and wait for the news to come out so that we may proceed? Not being sarcastic, but you have to admit it is frustrating that you are simply not reading the corrected source and or arguing the validity of a source that is quite credible. Wentomowameadow you are working very diligently to do good work on Wikipedia, please take an additional moment and read the Discovery Channels Planet Green (which is at the discovery.com website as well not a different url.. and notice it is a key new source. Dayewalker you are supporting an argument that does not exist. I am merely trying to get the two of you to see that Peta is no longer the reference source after it was originally requested be from another source. Both of you may find the last article in the history Daywalker mistakenly eliminated, and scroll down to the two new references. The second is a vegetarian site publishing the matter of Lipton testing on animals for bolstering tea claims. If you click on the "about" tab will see shows a good number of credible people at work. I trust you will read the last deletion in the history and scroll to see that Peta was no longer a source when asked for another. I am quite reasonable and agreed there should be more than one credible source. --WikiShares (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)