Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Centrereded (talk | contribs)
Tag: Reply
Line 38: Line 38:
*B) The materials are carefully and diligently sourced from leading German and International sources. To make sure accurate sourcing, no tabloid sources were used.
*B) The materials are carefully and diligently sourced from leading German and International sources. To make sure accurate sourcing, no tabloid sources were used.
*C) The changes were reversed by an user with a likely COIN who was recently activated and was likely hired to scrub the page from any negative information.[[User:Centrereded|Centrereded]] ([[User talk:Centrereded|talk]]) 17:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
*C) The changes were reversed by an user with a likely COIN who was recently activated and was likely hired to scrub the page from any negative information.[[User:Centrereded|Centrereded]] ([[User talk:Centrereded|talk]]) 17:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Centrereded|Centrereded]] I will give this one final try. If you are unable or unwilling to take advice onboard I will simply wish you luck and pass on by. I have no horse in this race. I am advising you only on the matter of creating a consensus. I donate care about the outcome one way or another.
*:A consensus is created by making a proper proposal for what you wish, hope, to happen. This requires detail. A broad brush "I'd like to do this" will not suffice. You need a full rationale,
*:Once you have made this detailed, concrete proposal, you need to seek the views of the community. You are allowed to ask those you view to have an interest in the topic to offer their unbiased views. You may only seek to influence those views inside the discussion.
*:[[Wikipedia:Consensus]] is your reference guide.
*:There is no need to reply to me, nor to ping in any reply. I am politely not interested. Either seek to form a consensus or do not. Either is fine by me. Agains,the route you are trying will not work. It attracts no views for or against because your proposal is flawed. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]] 17:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:26, 22 November 2021

Title

@Hawkeye7: is there a reason for the inconsistent naming strategy employed in this article? Is it Otto Bock or Ottobock? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany it's Otto Bock; elsewhere it's Ottobock. You can see this in the two images in the article. The latter form has bee preferred since 2011. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The usage in the article should be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Before this hits the main page, could we please establish a consistent approach to the naming? Right now the target article in the hook in the DYK is a redirect, and that's sub-optimal. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this edit summary was a little unnecessary, you could have continued the discussion if you felt that having an article title and a lead in conflict with one another was de rigeur. I won't bother you directly again. Sorry for any inconvenience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered the article to use "Otto Bock" consistently, although its still "Ottobock" for the US subsidiary and in the references. There's nothing I can do about the name in the hook, as it is in the queue and I am not an administrator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: You can raise a comment at WT:DYK or at WP:ERRORS if you want to wait for it to hit the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

Hello, please don't remove the controversies, this is the right place for it. It's not applicable on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hans_Georg_N%C3%A4der

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Adam.Sudo (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies/Negative Facts

Hello, I would like to know what's wrong with my edits. I understand they represent negative publicity, but they are well-referenced. The words are originally not mine, but from the referenced. Please reach a consensus regarding this matter. Centrereded (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the consensus, I believe my edits are acceptable because they speak the truth and are supported by good references, including some top publications. Majority of my edits are in neutral tone and referenced accordingly. If the problem is negativity, then I will work on the tone again using the same references. Let me know what could be done, as I believe the edits are not an attack, but just pure facts. All the AFC reviewers suggested to add the edits on the company's page (Ottobock), rather than the owner's page (Hans Georg Nader). Thank you. @Adam.Sudo:, @Mlb96:, @SVTCobra:, @Slywriter:, @Timtrent:, @David notMD: Centrereded (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This does not work for building consensus on anything. State what you believe should be changed and make a case for that change FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: I want everything I added to be back again? Not just one thing?Centrereded (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while you may want that, I very much doubt that will be the start of consensus building. Folk will look at that and just ignore you. There is no proposal here, there is just "I want."
Would you give this request any attention if you were seeing it for the first time?
Ok, you'll say "Yes", but you will be unique. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Ottobock is one of the leading prosthetics companies in the world that is subject to extensive media reporting and scrutiny on a frequent basis with its founder being a prominent German industrialist, George Nader, whose German Wikipedia page I have attempted to translate into English and include additional research. My additions outlining some recent controversies of the company warrant a permanent inclusion on the basis that:
  • a) While the company founder's page submission was declined, multiple Wiki editors agreed that the controversies section belong to Ottobock page rather than the company's founder's page
  • B) The materials are carefully and diligently sourced from leading German and International sources. To make sure accurate sourcing, no tabloid sources were used.
  • C) The changes were reversed by an user with a likely COIN who was recently activated and was likely hired to scrub the page from any negative information.Centrereded (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Centrereded I will give this one final try. If you are unable or unwilling to take advice onboard I will simply wish you luck and pass on by. I have no horse in this race. I am advising you only on the matter of creating a consensus. I donate care about the outcome one way or another.
    A consensus is created by making a proper proposal for what you wish, hope, to happen. This requires detail. A broad brush "I'd like to do this" will not suffice. You need a full rationale,
    Once you have made this detailed, concrete proposal, you need to seek the views of the community. You are allowed to ask those you view to have an interest in the topic to offer their unbiased views. You may only seek to influence those views inside the discussion.
    Wikipedia:Consensus is your reference guide.
    There is no need to reply to me, nor to ping in any reply. I am politely not interested. Either seek to form a consensus or do not. Either is fine by me. Agains,the route you are trying will not work. It attracts no views for or against because your proposal is flawed. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply