Talk:Sustainability/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Neutral presentation

As has been noted in the peer review and also in the recent conflict of interest discussion, the article seems to have lost its way as a neutral presentation of the different aspects of sustainability, and had become an exercise in ax grinding the pov of the U.N. and its associated bodies of studies and commissions, statements, etc. - Also because of, in my view, the over control of a team of editors here led by Sunray, and Travelplanner and Granitethighs, who also formatted his recently published book into the citations... and there was no discussion on notability of it or disclosure of his organization or authorship'... all of whom have all promoted and recently defended a probably non notable, very recently published book... written by one of those editors... it seems pretty apparent that this article for months has not really improved but has lapsed into a non neutral crusade of pointing and leading to information.

So... I have shortened some of the more trivial material in the article... stuff that may lead to over reffed U.N. material... and there still is some of that... also organizations that are corporate promoters of sustainability and I would ask if any members here of the team are involved in any outside aspects that could make for conflicts of interest could they discuss it next time? Some sections of the article which were preachy and calling Wikipedia readers to get involved in political/sociological aspects... were also edited down. Neutral presentation does not include for calling for political/sociological aspects as solutions and promotions in this context. skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please present specific evidence to support your claims. There has been no ruling on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and several editors have disagreed with your outrageous and vexatious claims. Sunray (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not try to provoke or be uncivil by describing real issues as you have done above. Removing a tag is not a good idea. The tag is to get other people to examine issues brought up. With a closed editing team controlled mostly by yourself as leader, very little outside input is coming into the editing here. skip sievert (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, these issues have been covered before; there is no leader, and description hardly constitutes provocation or uncivilised discussion, on the contrary. There are plenty of people aware of the issues and discussing them and anyone else can jump into the discussion at any time. The other thing I see keep popping up are requests for you to provide evidence to support your claims. Please don't dismiss the responses and comments of other editors on the basis that they have been helping edit the article or any suspicions you may have of them being biased. I for one am the least likely person I know to assess anything on any basis other than reality, fact, truth, etc. So if your claims can be proved to be true, I'll accept them no worries. How about you list your concerns here in dot points so we can adress each one? Nick carson (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston's final words on the subject at the COI Noticeboard were: "I do think that both articles would benefit from rewriting and should use a less promotional tone about sustainability, but that is not clearly a COI problem."[1]

The peer review has identified specific concerns with the tone of the article, which we are working on. Please stop grinding on this and let us work with the outside reviewers to improve the article. Sunray (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nick carson (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions: 1RR

OK, clearly there is a need to calm down the edit war here. A simple solution presents itself: Sr and Ss are both restricted to WP:1RR for the time being. Starting now, and previous reverts count William M. Connolley (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section rewrite

Perhaps due to the nature of the team here and its interests the article has been problematic as to neutral presentation. This has been noted by outside observers. Reading the lead section of the article was confirmation. The U.N. is cited too much... and it was unclear sometimes that the U.N. opinion... and they are a political corporate sponsored organzation ... was being presented as fact or truth... I rephrased and redid for clarity and flow some passages of the lead... and I think now as the issue of neutral presentation is finally starting to be got at... it is safe to say that the former edit needed help... and still the U.N. material is over done... but at least it is shown where in my opinion this over sourcing is at least presenting. Below is a slight re editing of the lead which is more neutral and more illustrative of lack of p.o.v.... and this is now in the article.

Suggestion... instead of getting revert happy... lets edit the article for incremental improvement and neutral presentation... Also shunting off to a large number of sub pages does not seem to have been a really good way to edit this article because only the team members then seem involved.

New phrasing of lead

Sustainability, in a broad sense is the ability to maintain a certain process or state. The word 'sustainability' is frequently used in connection with biological and human systems. In an ecological context, sustainability can be defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.[1]

Sustainability has become a complex term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, particularly the many different levels of biological organization, such as; wetlands, prairies and forests[2] and is expressed in human organization concepts, such as; eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, and human activities and disciplines, such as; sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture and renewable energy.

For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished. However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that possibly returning human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits is now problematic.[3]

In 1989, the World Commission on Environment and Development convened by the United Nations in 1983, articulated their definition of sustainability: "[to meet] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[4] End -

Previous version replaced by the above

Sustainability, in a broad sense is the ability to maintain a certain process or state. It is now most frequently used in connection with biological and human systems. In an ecological context, sustainability can be defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.[1]

Sustainability has become a complex term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, particularly the many different levels of biological organization, such as; wetlands, prairies and forests[2] and is expressed in human organization concepts, such as; eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, and human activities and disciplines, such as; sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture and renewable energy.

For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished. However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to return human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.[3]

Since the 1980s, the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres. In 1989, the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) articulated what has now become a widely accepted definition of sustainability: "[to meet] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[4 End -

Best to read in context of given links in the article ... but this comparing gives an idea of the change. skip sievert (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, the lead section has undergone a 4-5 month collaborative rewrite as is of a better quality than it ever has been before, it may require very minor adjustments if anything. Nick carson (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Collaborative editing

People have signed up to a collaborative editing of this article. The present article is the result of a collaborative consensus and any substantial changes need to be considered and discussed by the editing team, otherwise reverting changes is in order. Issues of npov etc are also a matter of consensus. What is or is not a npov - is, in itself, a matter of opinion and one person does not have the right to override all the others without discussion. The article is still under development, it is under peer review and responsive to it. There is always room for improvement but due process is currently consensus.The lead has proved the most difficult section of the article and this is not surprising as it is meant to be a synthesis of the topic as a whole, the article itself, and also being factual, stimulating and imaginitively written. My own view is that we have a way to go. I have also developed a proposal for this section [2] but I think all suggestions need careful collective scrutiny. I would also like to point out that the editing procedure was agreed some time ago and that diversions/disruptions simply extend the whole process in time. Best if we work together one job at a time? I also suggest changes to the Lead be discussed on the "Lead page" cited previously. This saves clutter. Granitethighs (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said GT. I agree with all your points. Sunray (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The editing team here has failed to produce a neutral article in many months of editing and talking about editing. Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are guidelines. It is better to let others constructively edit the article for this reason and also the fact that the team seems to have too much in common as to what it considers worthy of inclusion. Doing a mass revert like Sunray just did is not really a good idea... that is not cooperative editing really... editing out something like Peak water in the water section seems to very much an exercise of trying to control who is editing rather than who is providing good information. Also in the lead what was attempted was to diminish the preachy tone... and focus without explaining who is saying what in regard to the U.N. skip sievert (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with GT and Sunray, any major changes, questions, issues, etc, need to be discussed in the article's talk page first. My primary interest in life is music, and I have pretty much ignored music and sustainability in this article, if anything. Nick carson (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As said the editing team has taken a B article and turned it into a non neutral promo of the U.N. - As a worker for the U.N. I think you may have a conflict of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 - Granitethighs has linked and reffed his probably non notable book into the article... and Sunray reverts something like Peak water for who knows why. I posted the changes... no one discussed them... they just reverted. skip sievert (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, YOU made the initial changes. It is YOU who has the concern about the UN. Unless and until YOUR views are shared by the collaborative editing team, or there is concern expressed by peer review or other relevant "outside" comment then there is no reason for any adjustments. Granitethighs (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert says: "The editing team has failed to produce a neutral article." He has said this a number of times and in a number of different ways. He has failed to provide any evidence to support this claim.

In the past few weeks he has stated that the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment is not a reliable source and suffers from "corporate bias," alleged a conflict of interest on the part of Granitethighs, accused other editors of "UN bias" and made a number of other allegations. None of these claims has been substantiated.

The reliable source question was referred to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard [3]. The MA was judged by the editors of that noticeboard to be a reliable source. The conflict of interest question was referred to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard [4] where an editor found that it was "not clearly a COI problem."

In the absence of any evidence to support these endless claims, they amount to nothing more than Skipsievert's personal point of view. Responding to them has proved incredibly time-consuming and is diverting editors' attention from editing the article, in the midst of a peer review. He does not accept the consensus of editors on this page and he evidently does not accept the opinions of outside reviewers. I think we can no longer respond to any of his allegations that are not supported by documentary evidence and reliable sources. Sunray (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Without clear documentary evidence these vague accusations lack credibility: we cannot afford to waste more time. Granitethighs (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well put Sunray and GT. Skip, such an inclusion should have been discussed beforehand, that is why it was reverted. Also, I do not work for the UN, I don't even get paid for doing anything other than selling computers, delivering pizzas and sometimes for making music. Nick carson (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The team is a fine construct. Lets not confuse that construct though with an ability to assume OWNership of the article. The team is a closed circle of like minded people apparently and this makes for a mono presentation of information in regard to certain things. Granitethighs book highlights the U.N. and he has injected U.N. material into the article to a degree that seems too much. I have never said that the http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx is not notable or could not be used as a link... only that it is linked to an absurd degree in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 .. pardon Nick, but this is not an admission that you are involved in the U.N.? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 to the point where you could be a little careful in regard to editing that subject?

Outside reviewers... from the conflict of interest board have noted that the article has neutrality problems..

At present both articles seem to be far from neutral, since they are promoting sustainability as an Obvious Good Thing, and then planning how to achieve it. (The editors seem to be enlisting Wikipedia as a partner in the crusade). If the articles were neutral and factual, they would just be giving a balanced account of what various proponents and opponents have said. It's hard to see this as a matter needing COI enforcement. The neutrality issues that remain are mostly a WP:Neutral point of view problem that could be solved by a change of tone, or by getting input from a broader range of editors. There has already been a concern about NPOV expressed in these peer review comments, under the heading 'Assertion versus verifiable fact.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC) end http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

Also... Sunray to say I outed an editor for reffing his book on this article Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites and this Sustainability article... and yes I do believe a really huge conflict of interest has occurred with Granitethighs, has proven untrue. I think it is a problem when an editor makes an entire article sourced by a book they wrote, and then does not disclose that on an article talk page. This guideline seems pretty clear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-coi It is also true that said editor outed himself. So the clique of editors here listed by name in this section here, seems to be overly in control of the content of this article in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In responding to your comments, I would first remind you of the review and findings by Jehochman in December, [5] which you agreed to. We continue to abide by those principles. I will respond, as briefly as possible, to your claims, above:

1. There is no "ownership" of the article. The editors who are working on the FA Project all signed up at the top of this page. Please note the open invitation to join.
2. You continue to maintain that GT has a conflict of interest, despite the fact that none was found by the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard [6]. Unless you present a new finding on this matter, we cannot respond to these allegations further.
3. You continue to allege that Nick's involvement with the UN's Decade of Education for Sustainable Development may somehow bias the article. You have presented no evidence of this.
4. You state that the article has "neutrality problems" and refer to the comments of the peer review. These comments have been addressed by GT and me. The specific example given by the reviewer was a passage of text that had been added by an IP editor. At the time s/he added it, we asked for specific page numbers to be able to verify the reference. [7] None were provided, and the text has since been removed. The peer reviewer also commented on the use of "we" and "our" (i.e., the tone of the article). This has also been addressed and will be the subject of further review.

I would like to draw your attention to one of Jehochman's findings:

• "Skipsievert should not frustrate consensus of the working group by posting lengthy or tangential comments, circular arguments or any similar tactics that amount to disruption"

I believe that the other editors and I have all demonstrated our willingness to respond to reasonable requests by you (but please keep them brief). The editors on this page have also demonstrated a willingness to discuss claims supported by evidence by you. I doubt that there is much more anyone can do. Please let us get on with the editing of this article. Sunray (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I brought the issue of team editing led by yourself to Jehochman's attention... he also said that I should be allowed to edit the article which you have prevented me from doing. I have brought up real issues. I have reported what I consider problems here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment - What you are referencing above is not in my view a fair way to present events on the article and I do think you have edited in this manner, in regard to issues brought up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing as the team in general has in my view, relating to issues having been brought up. I have tried to make the article neutral and also to show where the U.N. is being used to over source material. Also pointed out that an editor sourced his for profit book here himself. That is a clear violation of C.O.I. and those are the rules.

Also from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard ... At present both articles seem to be far from neutral, since they are promoting sustainability as an Obvious Good Thing, and then planning how to achieve it. (The editors seem to be enlisting Wikipedia as a partner in the crusade). If the articles were neutral and factual, they would just be giving a balanced account of what various proponents and opponents have said. It's hard to see this as a matter needing COI enforcement. The neutrality issues that remain are mostly a WP:Neutral point of view problem that could be solved by a change of tone, or by getting input from a broader range of editors. There has already been a concern about NPOV expressed in these peer review comments, under the heading 'Assertion versus verifiable fact.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC) End quote seems pretty clear to me... and your appraisal of this seems not really connected to what is going on in the article. skip sievert (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No one has prevented you from editing the article. In fact, you have made dozens of changes to the article in the last few weeks. i did, however revert a number of recent edits, in which you inserted a POV that was completely contrary to the consensus of other editors on this page. You will recall one of Jehochman's findings that "If [your] edits are unhelpful, they can be reverted." I checked each one of your edits. Most inserted your POV that the UN should not be referred to. As I said above, your contention is contrary to the findings of the editors of the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Some of your edits were simply arbitrary stylistic changes, and one was in error: Your addition of the phrase "Peak water" into a sentence about the global water cycle which was a paraphrase of an article by Shiklamov. That article by Shiklamov does not refer to peak water. To do so would violate WP:VER.

Beyond that you repeat a number of other allegations that we have already responded to (some many times). I have nothing further to add. Sunray (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, at the time I wrote that on my userpage, we were still establishing the group, all we knew was that it was part of the UN's effort to educate the world on issues of sustainability. Once we had a name, built the website and became more organised, I updated the info on my userpage accordingly. Nick carson (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray your are misconstruing... by mistake my stance. Most inserted your POV that the UN should not be referred to. end quote Sunray. Not true.. my opinion is that the team has over used and over inserted related information because of the obvious pov of the team which in my view acts in detriment to neutral presentation and that the U.N. info. has spilled over through out the article in links and related ref/notes... quotes etc. Related U.N. information used a couple three times would be fine... but it is not used to neutral presentation effect currently in the article.skip sievert (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Obvious POV of the team." Sorry pal, I don't buy that. I do not have the same POV as Nick, GT or TP. You would need to show evidence of this and so far, you have not. I plan to drop this one now. You? Sunray (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Curtailing quality degredation in the rewritten article

Passionate about sustainability? For it? Against it? Got some valuable information to contribute? Before you click edit this page and jump in...

A group of WP editors have spent 4-5 months rewriting this article, and their still working on it, attempting to gain it Featured Article status. Since the major overall rewrite, a number of edits have been made by a number of different editors that have doubled up information, deleted valuable information, etc. These edits degrade the overall quality of the article, making it more and more difficult to improve upon it further. If you have any information to contribute or see anything that needs fixing or feel you can help in any way, please discuss it here first. This will enable us to maintain the quality of the article whilst simultaneously improving upon it, refining it, in our efforts to gain FA status.

There are a number of people watching it diligently, so any vandalism will disapear very quickly, plus, vandalism is old dude, it's all about Street Art now, didn't you know that? No one cares about vandalism anymore, and if you want to have fun, go to Uncyclopedia! Nick carson (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen, brother Nick. Given that one of the problem examples identified by the peer reviewer was some text that had been added by a driveby anon IP, I was wondering whether we should put the "under construction" template back on the article page for awhile, to get the article into final form for the FA submission. Sunray (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. I readded the text you've removed 3X - sorry, there was half a reference sitting in limbo in the main article and I checked what it was referring to and put it in. Much better without this. I'll get back to the references soon. Granitethighs (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a bad idea because of the past performance of the team as it relates to neutral presentation (U.N. over sourcing). The team has had so many multiple sub-pages going on that it may be difficult to figure out what is what. Also recently I noticed that a book was reintroduced into the article that was written by one of the team members. This is a conflict of interest or possibly just spam. The person in question works for the company also that had the book published. There is nothing notable about the book. Sources given in the book can be gone to and used instead of using a non notable book which was put into the article by a member of the team here and endorsed by all other members apparently. The book is a capital project.

It is noted that the team has worked on this article for not sure how long, and it is arguable that the article has not been much improved with their control of editing, (my opinion). It was a good B article before, it was written in general (my opinion), in a more neutral manner previously. skip sievert (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In response: 1) The observations about neutral language made by the peer reviewer have been addressed. 2) There has been no conflict interest found. You referred this to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and they said that it was "not clearly a conflict of interest." 3) I have restored the citation to this book as I believe it to be a valuable and reliable source. Sunray (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with sourcing the article to a team members book here, that the other members of the team support. By the same token, it should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or other interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article (mentioned elsewhere Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites) See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

I assume you are speaking for the team here Sunray that you believe Granitethings book should be a part of the article. However, I think that the book is non-notable as it doesn't meet WP: Notability (books) though we are not discussing whether the book should be made into an article where the criteria is probably steeper. Because of that and the fact that the book was introduced into the article by the author of the book... a team member, I do think we have a classic case of spamming an article with a commercial book the sources of which could be used though. Sustainable Gardening (Paperback) Sustainable Gardening(Paperback) More About this Product List Price: $35.00 This is a hefty price. Where does the money go... or beyond that how is it that this book is notable? Another problem I have with all of this is that the author of the book also started an article Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites pretty much mono sourced to that book also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838 - Primary sources, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

I would call this spamming or conflict of interest. Those are the rules. You can not introduce a book you have written on Wikipedia... in an article you created... and especially not when you introduce the material like an ordinary source without revealing the spam aspect of reffing your own book. skip sievert (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip if those are the rules, why was no conflict of interest found on the COI noticeboard? And if the book is "non-notable" why are you bringing this up on the talk page for a sustainability article when nobody has ever questioned sustainability being a notable subject? And if there is a rule saying you cannot introduce a book you have written in Wikipedia, where is this rule written down? And since when was "UN over-reffing" a recognised problem?

Most importantly when will you stop wasting everyone's time answering your discredited criticisms over and over again and let us get on with improving the article?--Travelplanner (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, you'll need to provide evidence for your claims. All assertions and discussion thereafter is a bit of a time waster. We've all got better things to do, so if you've got worries, suspicions, theories, work out the nuts and bolts and try to prove them as being fact. A quick tip, the CSIRO is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), it's the national government body for scientific research in Australia, not a company or other such private commercial entity. I've got theories/suspicions about Swire Shipping company, or someone advocating them, posting comments on the talk page of the 2009 Queensland oil spill article, but suspicions are all they are right now because I don't have sufficient information to say that it's fact. Nick carson (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagging section for spamming book

The section: Management of human consumption tag for spamming commercial book by editor and team member here) How is it that an entire area of the article is sourced to a commercial non notable book authored by a team member and endorsed by the editing team here? skip sievert (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The publisher is in effect, a scientific research arm of the Commonwealth of Australia. More evidence needs to be provided before any valid accusations of COI can be made. Any material published by the CSIRO is considered somewhat notable at the very least. Nick carson (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Nick has said. We need to base decisions on facts and evidence, not someone's POV. The guideline defines wikispam as "advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming." Skipsievert is referring to a citation that is a reliable source. Reviewing the criteria in the guideline there appears to be no justification for a spam tag and I've removed it. Sunray (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Granitethighs put the ref/link in the article to source non specifically an entire sub section of the article, which Sunray has again reverted back to Granitethighs book reffing. Granitethighs previously did not reveal he was the author of this book. He also used his book in another article Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites. This book of his may or may not be notable... but it was never discussed or revealed until it was exposed recently that he was sourcing information to his own published book. That seems conflicted... and it also seems like spam in the sense that a commercial book was used in an article by the person that wrote it. The author is also affiliated with the group involved in having the book published.

The book is not written about or reviewed anywhere except on commercial book selling sites. It may contain some interesting information, but much of that information was sourced outside of the book and put into the book... more info on this here Talk:Sustainable gardening. This issue I think violates some basic guidelines. I understand that a couple of editors here in the team support inclusion of the book in the article, but I do not because of reasons given. skip sievert (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

You have repeated this dozens of times. No one agrees with you. Your continued insistence on your POV in your talk page comments and edits amounts to disruptive editing (see next section). Please stop. Sunray (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The general tone of your communication is not helpful, nor is the replication of material below when a simple link would do. You asked for information regarding the spam tag. I have given it. I have not repeated this dozens of times. My talk page? What has that got to do with editing the article? We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and try to bash each other. skip sievert (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, we asked for evidence, you need evidence, proof. Please don't search for points on which to argue. Your advice is excellent: "We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and try to bash each other." but are you following it? Nick carson (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to 'get the point'

See also: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is not.

The editing team has expressed the view that reasonable verified and substantiated requests will be given full consideration. However, IMO the recent spate of "refusing to get to the point", repeated "tagging" total disengagement with "consensus building", "ignoring of requests for explanations", "ignoring moderator suggestions", "rapid negative engagement with new contributors" all spell out the pattern of disruptive editing that has long-delayed completion of this collective effort, and it deserves disciplinary action. Granitethighs (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur that Skip's editing lately has met many if not all of the above criteria for disruptive editing.--Travelplanner (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd be willing of course to listen and discuss and devote time to any suspicions Skip has if he can provide some more information and proof on the assertions, but in the meantime it is disruptive. Last week, I extended an offer of transparency on his user talk page to discuss any issues he has with the editing team, etc, but he seems to have refused or just doesn't want to talk about the nuts and bolts. Nick carson (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from copy pasting long guidelines about articles and demeaning missives about other editors. A simple link or paragraph would do if a point is trying to be made. When a quarter of a page is devoted to something that is debatable anyway then Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves becomes a larger issue. skip sievert (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Offering transparent and honest discussion is not taunting or baiting. I have not seen any occurence of anyone pushing you to the point of breaching civility, on the contrary. Editors here are merely relaying the reality of the situation. The opportunity to talk/discuss your concerns and try and work through proving any suspicions you might have, stands. Nick carson (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Time for me to step in and comment. I have tried to stay away from this heated discussion for a few months to give myself a clear mind. Unfortunately, skip is driving almost all of us crazy by his absurd reasoning and pushing personal POV since October 2008. (I am getting close to pulling my hairs out) Clearly, skip, the consensus here is that you are disruptive. Consider this as a final warning, after which we have no choice but to determine whether you should be blocked. This is your last chance, don't blow it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that you are baiting me with the last communication here. Please stop. Please take such disputes if you feel they are disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration. I brought up a point here that I thought that needed to be addressed. That is all, and that was several days ago. skip sievert (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's comments can hardly be construed as "baiting" or a "personal attack." It is his observation. As to your disruption having been "several days ago." Not so. It began on March 10 and continued to March 29. How were any of us to know you had stopped? Will you take OhanaUnited's advice and stop now? Sunray (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to post above. And please stop trying to provoke. skip sievert (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, I would like to point out that his disruption didn't start in March, he started it way back in October 2008. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Sunray was referring to this current burst, and I think perhaps skip understands the situation now. Nick carson (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice on adding material

On the advice of User:Granitethighs I am requesting the editors whether the following essay [8] can be put in the article? This is a personal essay on my attempt to live sustainably. This essay was published in a leading Indian newspaper as main article. When I tried putting it in the article it was removed. I feel that after all the whole concept of sustainable living implies personal examples.

All the best. Ruralface (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources are an important aspect of a neutral encyclopedia article. The policy on reliable sources states: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This includes peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by a reputable publisher. Self-published sources are usually not acceptable. I have removed the reference to your article as it did not seem to meet the policy. Please let me know if I've missed something. Sunray (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen many articles in Wiki which have references to the newspaper articles. This essay of mine was also published in a leading English newspaper in India. The link to the newspaper article is at the bottom of the essay. I do understand that peer reviewed articles carry more authenticity but the whole basis of Wiki is to give as much knowledge as possible and an article published in a leading newspaper also is peer reviewed by the editors.

All the best. Ruralface (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a very wide subject to cover, my own view is that it does not really enhance an article on such a huge topic to include details at the level of your work, which however would be an excellent addition to the Sustainable living article.--Travelplanner (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TP, it would be better suited to the sustainable living article, however, it would be a good addition nonetheless in the External Links section of this article at the very least. Such personal stories are invaluable to people seeking more detailed and personalised information, perhaps not best suited for inclusion in a factual article on the subject, but highly valuable information regardless. Nick carson (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will add this as an external link. I will also try to put this in sustainable living. However my past attempts have been vandalised by some user. Part of the mistake was mine since I did not have an account.

All the best Ruralface (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The news article would have to be the link, though, not the self-published version, to meet the requirements for verification. Sunray (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that Ruralface has added the link to a newsletter which I believe he is publisher of. I've left him a note on his talk page indicating my concern that if we allow this link we run the risk of becoming a link farm (which the article has been in the past) with people adding links to their self-published articles and websites willy nilly. I think we should get advice on guidelines to apply to external links and will make that referral. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps if any, we should include only resource links or hubs themselves, rather than just individual pieces of information. Nick carson (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I referred this to WikiProject External Links and their response was unequivocal - in a word, "No." This is not an appropriate link.[9]. I'm removing it now. One of the editors from the project has already removed it. Sunray (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 18:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For future reference this link was deemed to fail WP:ELNO criteria 1, 4, and 11, as "links to be avoided." The Sustainability article has become a link farm in the past, and this section of WP:EL should prove useful as a guide. Sunray (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just reverted as vandalism. It's pretty clear this is the same guy who created a stir with the same link on Simple living. He reverted all attempts by editors who removed it citing WP:EL with claims of "vandalism" and then proceeded to try to report me as a vandal on the Editing assistance page. It took a report to WP:COIN and semi-blocking the page to get him to go away. Clearly he chose this new name after being told his link-promotion wasn't welcome on the other article. See also the simple living talk page, the COIN report, and his two IP addresses. He continually disregards me "only a student" although he has been told not to by more than more than one other editor. ThemFromSpace 02:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I take issues with user Themfromspace since he has been vandalising all my attempts at putting links on Wikipedia. I think since he is just a young student his maturity shows. He has been removing links written by established authors who write for Guardian etc. On his site he used to write that he is an undergraduate student which he has convinently removed now. The point I am trying to make is that anybody with enough maturity, experience and expertise can make changes on Wikipedia sine the whole purpose is to provide information. What is harmful is very inexperienced people who claim to be "editors" are very disruptive whose only purpose is to remove links. I would like others to react to it. Thanks and regards. Ruralface (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think Sunray's comments stand. Nick carson (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Themfromspace is an editor from WikiProject External links. He is one of two editors who responded to my request for advice from that project. Ruralface's claims of "vandalism" show a willingness to take offence and a lack of knowledge about Wikipedia. It seems he does not respond well to advice (as the thread on this page reveals). BTW around here, age is not necessarily an indicator of maturity (or knowledge). Sunray (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expressed my concern about Ruralface's editing over at User talk:Ruralface#Your campaign to link to your own work. His comment above about User:Themfromspace is close to being a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also watch for possible alternate accounts and URLs; a request popped up at Dream (from Akraj to add an identical document sourced from a different URL (/pune.sancharnet.in/nariphaltan). --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the IP 218.248.79.4 and the URL "etagriculture.com", which appears to accept articles submitted to them. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. Sunray (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)