| Revision as of 09:02, 12 February 2024 editThe Bishop Akogun (talk | contribs)2 edits →Re:Dapo Abiodun: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:24, 12 February 2024 edit undoCahk (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers110,513 edits →Re:Dapo Abiodun: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| Hi Cahk! Sorry I didn’t explain why before I edited the out the damaging article about Dapo Abiodun. The story is not true and people are using the story on the notorious website to blackmail the Governor of Ogun State. kindly, help remove again. Now, I have a clear understanding how it should be done in the future. Regards ] (]) 09:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | Hi Cahk! Sorry I didn’t explain why before I edited the out the damaging article about Dapo Abiodun. The story is not true and people are using the story on the notorious website to blackmail the Governor of Ogun State. kindly, help remove again. Now, I have a clear understanding how it should be done in the future. Regards ] (]) 09:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :: {{reply to|The Bishop Akogun}} The paragraph in question has 2 citations, with one quoting apparently the subject's lawyer contesting disqualification. Just because something is damaging doesn't mean it's false. If you have other citations to the contrary, you are welcome to cite them in the article. However, blanket removal would not be permissible. --] (]) 09:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:24, 12 February 2024
Please click here to leave me a message. I'll use Template:Reply to to respond on my talk page.
 Archives |
Please respond to my message
Hi Cahk! I hope this find you well. This is my first time using wiki to chat in the "talk" section about edits. I'm the user in the chat (User talk:2601:600:8281:97C0:9426:C1EF:8EFC:99B5). I don't think you've seen my responses, would you please take a look at get back to me. I put many hours into revising the company page with over 40 citations, trustworthy news sources, and peer reviewed papers. The current page is now VERY outdated and needs to accept the updates. If I missed any area/typed something in a personal tone I didn't mean to and am more than happy to have you point those out to me to revise. Thanks! 2601:600:8281:97C0:C92C:9F4C:CD89:3ABC (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- An administrator has beat me to it in responding. I've nothing more to add beyond what was stated.--Cahk (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Would you please provide specifics of what your concern is? 2601:600:8281:97C0:48E5:D056:E6F2:86E5 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- They were clearly written in non-neutral language - " Your products are only as good as the science behind them (no matter what the marketing or price tries to make you believe)", citing a dozen or more press release is borderline advertorial if not outright advertisement, deleted all references to MLM despite Google searches showing terms MONAT and MLM frequently. As a self-proclaimed "former government research scientist", I am amazed you would even consider citing PR press release as a source despite the fact they are clearly one sided in nature and meant to promote the subject. I don't really know any Wiki editor would let you get away with the obvious promotional edits.--Cahk (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, if you read my final version you would have noticed that I edited all that info out. I completely agree that sentences like that should not be included!
- Sorry you're so upset about this, it's really very simple. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be a starting point for research, and updating an outdated page for transparency is vital. 2601:600:8281:97C0:D0CF:27BE:BC6B:B41 (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am not upset, and "if you read my final version you would have noticed that I edited all that info out" is not accurate. The citations remained littered with PRWire links. Further "truthaboutmonat" is a website that does not indicate ownership nor has any information on who is operating the website. Citing a website like that is not a reliable source either. --Cahk (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- They were clearly written in non-neutral language - " Your products are only as good as the science behind them (no matter what the marketing or price tries to make you believe)", citing a dozen or more press release is borderline advertorial if not outright advertisement, deleted all references to MLM despite Google searches showing terms MONAT and MLM frequently. As a self-proclaimed "former government research scientist", I am amazed you would even consider citing PR press release as a source despite the fact they are clearly one sided in nature and meant to promote the subject. I don't really know any Wiki editor would let you get away with the obvious promotional edits.--Cahk (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Would you please provide specifics of what your concern is? 2601:600:8281:97C0:48E5:D056:E6F2:86E5 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- An administrator has beat me to it in responding. I've nothing more to add beyond what was stated.--Cahk (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Re:Dapo Abiodun
Hi Cahk! Sorry I didn’t explain why before I edited the out the damaging article about Dapo Abiodun. The story is not true and people are using the story on the notorious website to blackmail the Governor of Ogun State. kindly, help remove again. Now, I have a clear understanding how it should be done in the future. Regards The Bishop Akogun (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bishop Akogun: The paragraph in question has 2 citations, with one quoting apparently the subject's lawyer contesting disqualification. Just because something is damaging doesn't mean it's false. If you have other citations to the contrary, you are welcome to cite them in the article. However, blanket removal would not be permissible. --Cahk (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)