MattisOne

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. TFD (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I want this deleted from my user page. This accusation was literally made in bad faith (that's not flinging the term "bad faith" around when it was after on edit, others concur). If you want to say that it can be deleted once the case is closed showing that I have no connection to him, that's acceptable but, I'd say then...hurry up. MattisOne (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Aspartame controversy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please do not selectively quote from WP:Neutrality if you are going to ignore WP:Civility and sign your posts.Novangelis (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility has been abandoned by the editors of the page entirely as the dismiss very legitimate disputes using biased interpretation of policy, based on logical fallacies. MattisOne (talk) 01:23, January 31, 2012‎ (UTC)

No. Civility has not been abandoned by the editors. On the other hand, you have argued about other editors ever since your first post, and continue it even after a warning advising you of policy. Despite your claims, the article has been reviewed by outside editors. Additionally, you still did not sign your post.Novangelis (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Legitimate disputes of potential bias must be examined. That is not uncivil. I suggest you review policy more objectively instead of interpreting it to fit whatever claim you'd like to make. "the article has been reviewed by outside editors" This claim of yours is unsubstantiated and vague. "Outside editors"? The general tone of the editing and article itself has been biased and typically by a select group of editors with specific opinion on the subject. If the issue with that is difficult for you to understand, please review Wikipedia's terms of use. Bias has no place here. MattisOne (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Review: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive670#Again, at aspartame controversy

Review: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Worsening talk page abuse at Talk:Aspartame controversy

A repeated call for undue weight is not a legitimate argument.Novangelis (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no call for undue weight being made whatsoever, only neutrality for an argument that has equally as many people on both sides. You, clearly having an opinion here, seem to be attempting to present the idea that there is a true consensus, which there is not. Please refer to policy on bias. MattisOne (talk) 02:16, January 31, 2012‎ (UTC)

There are not "equally as many people on both sides".Novangelis (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

True, there are actually more people currently in medicine that do not trust said reviews and believe Aspartame should be avoided. However, your clear bias has prevented you from reviewing evidence or drawing any logical conclusions here. You have officially revealed that your edits on this subject are based soelly on this opinion which you have presented, and not sources. MattisOne (talk) 02:30, January 31, 2012‎ (UTC)

NPA warning

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Aspartame controversy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Accusations of bad faith and bias are not appropriate on talk pages. Additionally, ongoing talk page abuse, using it as a platform to push a fringe viewpoint (rejecting the published review studies), is inappropriate.Novangelis (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto to accusations of pandering on my talk page.Novangelis (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not an attack to call your claims in bad faith. They are. I am not pushing any view point as you are, but I am pushing the neutral inclusion (in a controversy page!) of reliable science that has NOT been substantially or validly refuted. There is nothing fringe about a very prominent view point or literally documented FCTS about conflicts of interest. You are rejecting other published review studies that disagree with your viewpoint because you are anti-science and pro-mainstream thinking, no matter what it may be.

Reports will surely be filed again you if you continue this bias. MattisOne (talk) 04:43, February 1, 2012‎ (UTC)

It (accusing others of bad faith) is actually pretty much a textbook example of a personal attack actually (see WP:AOBF). Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not an attack to correctly identify actions done in bad faith. If it were, any user suspended from editing for abusive comments would be the victim of abuse due to in being "a result of comments in bad faith. There's nothing wrong with calling things for what they are. That would be like saying someone reporting a crime is targeting the person they reported even if it were true and that they are breaking the law. You continue to have illogical interpretations of policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are using a false analogy. Reporting misdeeds is not a personal attack. There is no mechanism for reporting "bad faith". You have to report for something substantive; if a pattern of edits demonstrates bad faith, there is no need to use the term. If there is a sound reason for reporting (e.g. ongoing personal attacks, disruptive editing in the form of not signing posts after adequate advisories, persisting in dead end arguments), reporting the edits is not a personal attack. Just flinging the term "bad faith" is pointless and counter to the principles of discussion of Wikipedia. Instead of dismissing clear statements of policy as illogical, take them to heart.Novangelis (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been reporting editing and other misdeeds. Just because some of them involve a subject you have a very biased opinion on, does not make them false reports. You are in no way making clear statements of policy but, interpreting portions of them in any way you see fit and trying to use your status here alone as justification or verification for their truth. Not cool, man. MattisOne (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts and format your talk

It is difficult to follow your comments and they are unformatted and often unsigned. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty is subjective. I will sign my posts. MattisOne (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

MattisOne, to help you, I'll go ahead and sign them for you, and will also format the page for legibility per WP:REFACTOR. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you...MattisOne (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)