Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by Guy Macon: Should I assume from the lack of a response that the committee has decided to reject my advice and copy what was written in 2011, or should I keep asking? |
→Comments by Guy Macon: Reply |
||
Line 133:
::Given the rise in COI editing by people selling Covid cures, magic cancer pills, and ancient medicines that put little girls in the hospital with kidney failure,[https://indianjnephrol.org/article.asp?issn=0971-4065;year=2013;volume=23;issue=4;spage=301;epage=303;aulast=Sathe] might I suggest carefully choosing the wording of this FoF rather than just copying what was written in 2011? --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 06:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:::Should I assume from the lack of a response that the committee has decided to reject my advice and copy what was written in 2011, or should I keep asking? --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 17:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
::::Editors do not have a conflict of interest ''merely'' because they have personal or professional interest in a topic. They might have a conflict of interest for other reasons. Or they might be incompatible with the community because they are advancing Fringe ideas or trying to create spam. I do not see a reason that the 2011 idea is longer correct principles and am not as concerned as you are by the effects that this principle could have. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by BilledMammal ==
| |||