User talk:Poggibonsi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Poggibonsi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --SUIT양복 05:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Email spam

I changed your strikethroughs to outright deletes. Wikipedia convention is not to use strikethroughs in article text. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions! Raymond Arritt 06:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clean up, I was unsure about whether I was doing it correctly and appreciate the help. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I agree with the substantive edits that were also made because I believe it unfairly eliminated a valid alternative viewpoint on an issue.

There is a debate as to whether or not opting out of emails is pro-consumer or only leads to more email. The article presented only one view on this debate. I did not alter that view point, but merely presented another. Your edits eviscerated the alternative viewpoint and cited the CDT report to note that in 14% of the cases opting out increased spam - omitting the more salient point that in 86% it did not.

I'm new to wikipedia and was surprised to find that alternative viewpoints that are substantiated are simply erased. In my view it undermines the credibility of wikipedia as a whole.

As such, I respectfully request that you restore the essential substance of what had been there so that the article reflects a balanced portrayal of that one small issue. Thanks. --Poggibonsi 07:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to request at 3O: It's a bit late to complain now about an edit from five months ago and a dispute that has had no further dialogue for one month. Since you failed to provide diffs, I had to dig this one up. That edit has poor formatting (do not use strikethrough in articles), weasel words ("widely believed") and speculation ("If this is true"). You also placed external links in body text, rather than using them as references of any kind (embedded citations would have been the bare minimum; footnotes are preferred). Raymond was right to revert you, and this is part of the process of article development. Adrian M. H. 10:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the 30. I do not dispute that my first editing attempt was a Wiki-disaster nor do I dispute that I should have acted sooner. I would have no problem with edits cleaning this up or making it conform to wiki-standards. My objection is that it went beyond that and eliminated an alternative viewpoint altogether.

For example, the rewriting of the language on the CDT report from 86% had no increased spam to 14% did is almost Rumsfeldian. Unfortunately, your response only addressed the form and not the substance of the edit.

I recognize that this edit is a minor point to a single article and not a major concern for me or anyone else on this planet. As a journalist, however, I am very concerned that wiki would tolerate elimination of legitimate viewpoints -- regardless of when it was brought to their attention. At this point, this is an issue of wiki's commitment to objectivity or balance -- that is a major issue.

Again thank you for your response. Poggibonsi 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)