User talk:LyoNewMedia

'The Lyoness International AG'

Lyoness International AG (no 'the') is not the trademark name for the expanding group of corporate structures, but merely the arbitrarily chosen name by Lyoness for its main holding corporation. Please, stop changing this back. The trademark name for the entire group is 'Lyoness'.

Lyoness expert (talk)

July 2013

Your recent editing history at Lyoness shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Technopat (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Technopat, it is clearly not the goal to start an edit war, therefore we tried to have a neutral discussion with Lyoness expert, stating and proving that the mentioned article is not a reliable and neutral source as it should be used in Wikipedia. If Mr. Brear in his own words does not count as evidence, then it is not clear, what counts as evidence. Also, he is not an "influential" person as stated by Lyoness expert. Furthermore, we even stated some of the points of the artcile that he was linking to, proving that this personal blog is not useable as clearly mentioned in the following Wikipedia guidelines:

1) “do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or groups”

2) “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”

Just undoing the edit again without having a good argument that supports it, is clearly stated as vandalism.

Dispute

Dear appreciated fellow Wikipedia contributor, if you wish to communicate with Technopat, you should post on Technopat's talk page.

I have argued my opinion on your talk page and on the talk page of the Lyoness article, and your decision to completely disregard this explanation makes me way whether you are independent of Lyoness, which is required in order to be allowed to edit articles. If you are affiliated with Lyoness, you will need to clearly state that. Else you are spamming, next to your exhaustive efforts to vandalise the Lyoness article.

Once more: Mr Brear's blog was never used to describe a fact, but to represent an influential opinion. Whether you agree or disagree with this opinion or whether it pleases you and your personal interests, is of no concern to it being influential.

I wish you a very nice day.

Lyoness expert (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Technopat (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material from this page

I have removed material from this page pursuant to WP:BLPREMOVE, please see the explanation at Talk:Lyoness/Archives/2013#Talk_page_edits before restoring it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Editing

Dear TransporterMan,

Thank you for the clarification and your efforts to keep the Wikipedia article neutral and based on the Wikipedia guidelines. Just one question appeared in that matter: Does this mean the section that mentions and references the blog can be deleted or will this happen automatically?

Thank you very much for your help and best wishes, LyoNewMedia

Please be sure to sign all of your talk page posts with ~~~~ rather than typing in your username. Failing to sign your posts properly prevents a proper date stamp from being added and makes long conversations very difficult to follow. If by "section" you mean "material supported by that source" then the answer is that I believe that your opponent will concede in that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your question on my talk page

Dear LyoNewMedia,

Thank you for your message and your consideration.

Indeed, the online archive doesn't refer to the article in question any longer; it used to. I have seen a written copy of the article in question and the article 'Gier nach geld' was indeed featured.

I am not sure why the Kriminalpolizei does not feature this article in their online archive, but in my understanding, a written article in a written published source, is at least just as reliable as an internet source. Further evidence for the existence of the article is provided by Lyoness' response to the article, which, I believe, is also referenced in the article.

Glad to be of help,

Lyoness expert

Lyoness expert (talk)} —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, LyoNewMedia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was Lyoness, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cnilep (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply+Apologies

Dear LyoNewMedia,

My sincerest apologies for my late reply. Somehow, I've completely glanced over your reply and I haven't received any notification from Wikipedia.

I agree that practically, it's a pity that the Kriminalpolizei hasn't kept the article available online for Wikipedia readers and other to publicly access, however, unfortunately, this goes for many printsources. Many newspapers and magazines (not to mention academic journals) do not publish all of their (old) articles online, or at least not for everyone to access (without a subscription or a one-time payment). This should, however, not in anyway deteriorate the value of the article and the validity of its existence. Wikipedia readers skilful with the internet should have no problems finding the article online; others who want to read the article should, like me, search for a written copy or request one from the publisher.

I don't see any ground for removing the reference or removing the text based on this reference based on the Wikipedia guidelines, although, as said, it's a pity the article is no longer abailable online.

All the best,

Lyoness expert (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I see your point, but I don't agree that verifiablity means that that process should be necessarily effortless. If one were to take that as a criteria, no Wikipedia page could be written anymore about, for example, historical events in the 1800s and about classical history, simply because the texts aren't easily accessible on the internet.

It's definitely not my place (and neither is it yours) to speculate why the Kriminalpolizei no longer features these articles in their online archive. Perhaps, Lyoness or any other affiliated party has complained. The fact remains that the article exists and that the contents are available to the public - one merely needs to take some action to verify that. This is comparable with references to books, where one will need to buy the book to see its contents.

As said, that's definitely not ideal, and I wish the Kriminalpolizei hadn't decided to remove the articles, so they were freely and easily available to everyone. But alas, that's not the case. If you'd want, you could contact them and ask them to put them back online; perhaps they'd agree to your request. Until then, readers of this Wikipedia page will have to take some action to be able to read this article.

I liked your idea about providing the link to a different website or scan of the article, yet, unfortunately, this would clash with Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore. the reference'd better remain like it is. By the way, I've never said that it was easy to located these articles on the internet, I merely stressed that people with a significant set of computer skills will have no problems locating it. As said, the rest can contact the Kriminalpolizei for a copy.

If you think the references violate any of Wikipedia's guidelines, please feel free to describe how and which guidelines are violated. If we can't agree on a solution, we could then seek mediation from a moderator again.

Lyoness expert (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... reply

Greetings LyoNewMedia. Thank you for your note. The matter you raise is indeed complex, and I'm afraid I won't be able to shed much light on it beyond what you already know or can imagine. Unfortunately, it's part of the loophole that exists regarding verifiability, based partly on the principle of assuming good faith (which is obviously fine when dealing with non-contentious content) and partly on the recurring problem of Wikipedia:Link rot, resulting from websites, even those run by government agencies, which one would imagine to be more stable, making changes to content, URLs, etc., resulting in the content no longer being accessible, at least via that particular link. You mention that Lyoness expert has commented on this, and I can assure you that, on several occasions, references that I have added myself have disappeared, leaving a frustrating dead link. There is a tool available, Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine, which sometimes works (in my experience, less often than I would have liked).

That said, "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Definition of published)

Regarding the uploading of an image of an article, apart from any copyright issues involved (including Fair Use, etc.), assuming all the good faith in the world, my personal opinion is that this would not be acceptable. The way I understand it, uploaded images are fine for showing copies of constitutions, books covers, etc., to complement text –but certainly not as references. There is a similar problem with Find A Grave, which can be used as an external link, but is most definitely not considered a reliable source. Visual references, if acceptable, should be directly accessible from the publishers' own website, or another reliable source, such as Google Books. However, I insist, it's my personal opinion, and it's the typical discussion that would divide opinion among however many editors care to discuss it. As the underlying issue here, however, is whether the content is contentious or not (which, from the context, I assume it must be), I would say that the more contentious the content, the higher the exigence in the verifiability of a source and the consensus required to include it in an article. I frequently find myself unable to add content regarding issues I have firsthand knowledge of, simply becuase I am unable to provide a verifiable source. Frustrating, but "them's the rules".

I'm sorry if I haven't been able to answer you directly, but it's one of those issues that, failing consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, typically gets solved by an admin. taking an executive decision, as objectively as possible, but finally imposing his/her personal opinion (which, if you're "lucky", coincides with yours), and one of the many reasons I have no wish to be an admin.

Just one final point, I would strongly recommend that this kind of discussion be carried out at the article talk page rather than on your respective talk pages, as that helps other interested editors participate actively in any consensus that needs to be reached. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings again. Yes, that template could be used for any images added as complementary content, to show, for instance, the first edition of a newspaper or magazine, or a particularly noteworthy headline, but not as an actual reference. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute

For your information, I left a message on the talk page of Technopat.

I just wanted to put a few things straight. I never said that I had a written copy in my possession; I merely said that I had been lucky to have seen a written copy of the article, and read it, which is why I was able to use it as a reference in the article. At that time, indeed, the article was still featured in the online database of this source too. Now, I am afraid I cannot upload a copy of the article, as that would violate copyright laws in many countries, as well as Wikipedia guidelines. As extensively explained, anyone who wants to check whether the article exists, can contact the publisher/author and receive a copy.

I do not appreciate that you have taken this 'dispute' to Technopat, without discussing that with me and without replying to my latest message in which I asked you to tell me which guidelines are violated by these references and which resolution and mediation options we could consider.

I agree with Technopat that this general discussion should take place on the article's talk page and not here or on our respective talk pages, and I'll make an effort to make that happen.

Lyoness expert (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I've just left a reply to Lyoness expert's note to me regarding this issue, and I would just like to point out that I have no objection whatsoever to either of you approaching me, but I must insist that I'm really not the ideal person to get in touch with over this dispute. Regarding the actual content of the article, and reaching consensus as to what that content should be, the article page is where it's at, and regarding dispute resolution, as you both know, there is a whole dispute resolution infrastructure available (here) for these cases, where experienced volunteers are much better able to help out and who can give advice regarding which policies apply. Just a final note: don't underestimate the value of consensus-reaching. I have seen worse disputes get ironed out, to the greater benefit of Wikipedia (as regards content) and, hopefully, to the greater benefit of its users, as regards the human aspect of this great project. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

No permanent harm done and thanks for your message. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask you to notify me in such cases, like I do too, and to stop putting words in my mouth:

- I've not accused you of bias. I simply said you have never denied it. Please, end the mystery, are you independent of the main subject of this article: Lyoness? - I've never said I have a copy, just that I saw and read one. I can however make a scan if I'd want, simply in the same manner as I did then. Everyone can get a copy of the article, simply contact the Kriminalpolizei

Lyoness expert (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your reply

Dear Lyoness expert,

sorry for not getting back earlier. I am quite confused as to why you think there is a mystery here. As I already mentioned on your talk page, I have given a clear reply on this topic on the talk page of Cnilep. My only goal is it to have a neutral and properly sourced article, that is all. Or have I ever asked to have something deleted that was referenced with a verifiable and reliable source?

But since you have decided to open that door, please could you, Lyoness expert, explain to me, why the Blog Lyoness Complaint Center claims that you have reported about the ongoings in our discussions. The article that was published about it (http://www.cc-lyoness.blogspot.co.at/2013/07/the-austrian-mafia-9-lyoness-attack-on.html) uses very harsh words and I actually am disappointed of the accusations that are thrown at me there. If you really have contributed to that (the author claims you have reported), I would be very disappointed - but maybe the article just leaves the wrong impression about your involvement.

Greetings, --LyoNewMedia (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Next reply

Dear LyoNewMedia,

My sincere apologies for not getting back to you earlier, but by leaving your reply to my message on your own talk page, rather than on mine, you significantly decrease the chances of me reading it (I now only saw it by accident).

As stated earlier, it isn't forbidden to edit material about subjects you are closely tied to. However, I do seem to remember that when creating my account, the Wikipedia guidelines stating something along the line of 'clearly state any affiliations you might have, to avoid later doubts about bias'. I think that by refusing to answer this simple question now for the third time, you are creating unnecessary doubt as to whether you may be tied to the main subject of the article you're editing frequently. Yet of course, it's entirely up to you whether you want to answer my simple question or not.

The same logic applies to me and my account, but I've got nothing to hide, so I don't feel any need to dodge your questions. I may have mentioned our ongoing discussion here on Wikipedia, which, importantly, is publicly available to everyone with an internet connection, to a few people I know to a greater or lesser extent. Indeed, it's possible that one or several of these people are involved with the blog you reference, which is something I'm not able to assess. For the record, I've never used the terms that are used in such publications, nor do I intend to in the future. Also, I've never given any sort of explicit consent to the information I (largely unwittingly) might have provided these people with being published online. However, as said, our discussions are publicly available online, and there is a very real chance that the people I've talked to weren't tied to this 'Lyoness Complaint Center', but that the people behind that blog have found our discussions by themselves (I could imagine them being interested in the developments here), or perhaps found the discussions after being tipped by someone else (possibly someone I mentioned our discussions to). Hope this clarifies that matter to you, if not, let me know.

All the best,

Lyoness expert (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

--Just a short addition to the above:

As said, Wikipedia has no strict guidelines on account affiliations, but does specify a few ways in which Wikipedia users can avoid accusations of bias and deal with 'conflicts of interests', in order to keep Wikipedia neutral and factual.

In case you'd be struggling with this (and I clearly say 'in case'), you may find the following pages of particular interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#The_information_in_your_article_about_me_is_wrong._How_can_I_get_it_fixed.3F

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

Hope to have been of help,

Lyoness expert (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to you

Dear Lyoness expert,

I am replying on my own talk page again so every user can see this discussion in its entirety at a glance. Since I tagged your username you should get a notice by Wikipedia and therefore see that I have done this.

Thank you for the linked sites. Apart from the fact that I have mentioned several times now that I only intent to be neutral and therefore want to guarantee that there is a neutral and correctly sourced text, please let me point out, that the sites you have linked to clearly state that Wikipedia is a platform that puts great emphasis on the fact that the anonymity of each and every editor is preserved.

I have decided to play by the rules of Wikipedia, just as you have suggested yourself. Therefore I want to excuse myself for speculating about you maybe having ties to a certain blog – which you have cleared up nevertheless. In that context I would like to get back to one of the basic ideas of Wikipedia that says, personal resentments are not what Wikipedia is about, it is about objective information that shall be accessible for the broad public.

I get the impression that we have made the first steps towards Godwin’s Law. That is why I would suggest that we cooperate for the best of Wikipedia to make it an even better source of information. Of course I cannot exclude the possibility that we will have different points of view in the future concerning an article, an edit or a source we both are interested in.

Let me add a few links which I think will be helpful to both of us in creating a good Wikipedia entry on Lyoness and other topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#The_information_in_your_article_about_me_is_wrong._How_can_I_get_it_fixed.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

I am looking forward to working on the article about Lyoness with you in the future so that we can, in a fruitful dialog, create a good source of information.

All the best --LyoNewMedia (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Dear LyoNewMedia,

It hasn't happened a lot so far (but let's hope that changes for the better now!), but I wholeheartedly agree. Let me just add two minor notes:

1) Somehow I don't receive these notifications you mention (must be a settings issue). This isn't a problem though, because now I know that I should look here once in a while. It may just happen that I respond a little later due to this. I hope this isn't a problem for you. If so, let me know, then we can maybe work something out. In general, like Technopat suggested, I think we should discuss content-related issues on the talk page of the respective articles. We can however notify each other of new messages there, and carry out other discussions on our talkpages.

2) I never meant to expose your identity to the world. I was merely concerned that any possible affiliations one might have, may (albeit subconsciously) impede one's abilities to be fully neutral and objective. Therefore, Wikipedia recommends, for example, that editors disclose their affiliations (if any) before editing articles. However, indeed, this is up to that editor in question, and certainly not up to me.

I too hope for a fruitful cooperation on an article on a truly interesting topic.

Lyoness expert (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)