| Revision as of 22:02, 14 November 2009 editFisherQueen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users57,545 edits →Discussion of your recent edits: note← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:17, 14 November 2009 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,283 edits →Edit warring, possible COI, violations of Neutral Point of View: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| Hi! I'm concerned that your recent edits may not be appropriate, so I've asked for neutral administrators to review them -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | Hi! I'm concerned that your recent edits may not be appropriate, so I've asked for neutral administrators to review them -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I've changed the link, which was to the wrong place. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | :I've changed the link, which was to the wrong place. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Edit warring, possible COI, violations of Neutral Point of View == | |||
| Above you mention that you are reviewing this article as part of a project. Is that an academic project, or is it a project sponsored by the company or it's public relations agency? I see that you have been ] to sanitize the article of sourced criticism. Misplaced Pages is not concerned with presenting companies in a favorable light. We reflect the view of ]. This company appears to have been the subject of considerable criticism within reliable sources, and thus the article may include that criticism ] to what is found in the sources. Even if you are right that the criticism is excessive, you must not edit war to get your way. Instead, use ] instead to settle disagreements with other editors. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:17, 14 November 2009
October 2009
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, MonaVie. While Misplaced Pages welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Dac04 (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Third Opinion Request
Hi there. I noticed you left a request for a third opinion on WP:3 involving the MonaVie article. I have edited your entry to the list so that it corresponds with the instructions on the third opinion page to provide a shorter, more neutral description of the dispute. I suggest you create a new section at Talk:MonaVie that details what is involved in the dispute and how you think it should be resolved, and invite the other editor involved to share their side. Once you do this, it will greatly increase your chances of receiving a third opinion. Thanks! Mildly MadC 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of your recent edits
Hi! I'm concerned that your recent edits may not be appropriate, so I've asked for neutral administrators to review them here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've changed the link, which was to the wrong place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring, possible COI, violations of Neutral Point of View
Above you mention that you are reviewing this article as part of a project. Is that an academic project, or is it a project sponsored by the company or it's public relations agency? I see that you have been edit warring to sanitize the article of sourced criticism. Misplaced Pages is not concerned with presenting companies in a favorable light. We reflect the view of reliable publications. This company appears to have been the subject of considerable criticism within reliable sources, and thus the article may include that criticism in proportion to what is found in the sources. Even if you are right that the criticism is excessive, you must not edit war to get your way. Instead, use dispute resolution instead to settle disagreements with other editors. Thank you. Jehochman 22:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)