Editthisandthat

September 2019

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Europe Business Assembly. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 16:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Bonadea, I did not add promotional material to the article, I added more information about the company in question and attempted to make a rather one-sided representation of the company into a more well-rounded and discursive article that showed more than one point of view. I was not attempting to soapbox, advertise, or promote in any way. I will be adding my edits back into the page immediately, and I hope that you can see what I am trying to do. If you have constructive suggestions on how to improve my edits, or have a specific problem, please do cite them to me and we will work to better the current, shoddy article. I hope we can resolve this without you removing my hard work again.
  • Yes you did, quite obviously. It is possible that the article isn't as neutral as it should be, but there is no way we are going to let you get away with commentary like this, " The Times published a very one-sided article slamming the EBA, stating that the "University of Oxford's academic reputation is being exploited by Ukrainian businessmen selling millions of pounds worth of fake awards and honours". However, it is important to note that the article in question relied heavily on anonymous sources, mentioning them throughout the article at least 9 times and vastly reducing its credibility." It is not up to you, whoever you are, to comment on a reliable source inside the article and claim it's not credible. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, again, no I did not. The commentary is a balanced nod to the fact that an "anonymous source" cannot, by definition, be considered credible. "It is possible that the article isn't as neutral as it should be" is a colossal understatement as the article is, quite frankly, defamatory for no good reason. I am not trying to be confrontational here, but I will not be quashed and I will indeed add facts to this page to make it a balanced factual page. May I ask why you have taken issue with my "commentary" and not the original author's? Are there any other specific phrases which you think should be removed? Be constructive, and we can work on this together.

• You may ask--and I'll say that I don't take issue with the Times author because they are a reliable source, and it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to comment in article space on sources. You can discuss things on the talk page, if you like. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oh, and please consider this a final warning. If you insert that whitewashing commentary again, you will be blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, again. I assume your "award" post on my talk page was perhaps an ill-advised attempt a humour, I actually find its insinuation rather offensive and I'd like you to remove it. If you have any constructive criticism of my edits, please leave it here and I am happy to discuss with you. Beyond that, I will state once more that I am attempting to better the article, genuinely, and I will not be bullied into removing my edits, even if it means having to use the procedures that this site has for conflict resolution and edit warring etc.

• You can remove it yourself. Your COI is obvious, and I think I've already been more constructive than your obvious attempt at editorializing and whitewashing warranted. BTW I assume you made at least one previous attempt in the article, as an IP. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Hi Drmies. Again, I must inform you that I have no COI as I am not part of the EBA team, but I am against smearing. Again, I must inform you that I was neither editorializing nor whitewashing, merely trying to make the article more balanced. You have not been helpful or constructive at all. You have been confrontational, condescending and unprofessional, and I will be actively searching for a review into your being fit for an administrative position (frankly, you are not). Finally, no, I did not make a previous attempt as a bare IP address, but you will have to take my word on that as I will not be sharing that information with you.

A barnstar for you!

	The "neutral" award
	This is not a real award. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)