User talk:Viewmont Viking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I like pineapples! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafsfan1986 (talkcontribs) 01:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello Viewmont Viking, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. McDoobAU93 23:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice on Git page edit[edit]

@Viewmont Viking: Hi VViking, just saw your message on my talk page, thank you.

You have recently undone an edit made on the Git page as alleged spam, so I read the references and I am proposing an improvement in the Git talk page to make it neutral.

Your opinion and advice would be most welcome. Thanks again! KDEWolf (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Muslim Aid[edit]

Dear Viewmont Viking

According to the Wikipedia rules, people are not supposed to engage in an editing war as you have been doing today when I edited the Muslim Aid page twice. As a Muslim Aid employee of two years, I know that the information in the Controversy section of the Muslim Aid Wikipedia page is incorrect, unfair and misleading, and that under normal journalistic practice would not be allowed. While such false information online used to have to be tolerated, this is no longer the case in the new, improved climate of expecting online information to be honest information.

Please explain what your background is and why you are re-instating information which falsely implies wrong-doing on the part of Muslim Aid. You said that my editing was 'white-washing' - please explain who you are and what, if any, knowledge you have of the specific allegations.

I can re-edit the information in the Controversy Section in a negotiated way with you but there is no point in my doing so if you are just going to re-instate the old, false text. So, as per the Wikipedia rules, please disclose your reasoning.

If we cannot resolve this situation, we will have to ask for an arbitrator.


Eileen Maybin Eileen Hester Maybin (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • It takes two to tango and I'm not the one with a clear COI. I'm also not removing sourced material RS. Go ahead as for an arbitrator, however having been an editor for quite a long time, I can tell you it is still pretty early in the process for arbitration. Thank you for your time in posting on my talk page, and now I ask you to bugger off unless you have something really to add to my talk page, or required to do so under WP guidelines. VVikingTalkEdits 16:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Viewmont Viking

Your message is unfortunately very rude which Wikipedia encourages editors to avoid being. I have of course declared who I am as I have no reason not to, and shows you that I am informed about Muslim Aid. However, you haven't answered my questions of you and given me any idea why you are writing about Muslim Aid in this way. I would be grateful if you could kindly respond to my original enquiries so that we can get a better understanding of this situation, thanks Eileen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileen Hester Maybin (talkcontribs) 17:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you even read COI, I do not have a conflict of interest for or against Muslim Aid. That is all you need to know. If you look at my edits I like to edit articles that new editors who have Conflicts of interest edit, whether they are purposely entering in POV material or they don't realize the rules. You have been informed of the rules on COI and POV and RS. I don't need to know anything about the subject to recognize when something is being whitewashed. I can view the reliable sources and tell, now there are differences of opinion on what constitutes RS and if specific information should be included and that should be taken to the articles talk page. Now I kindly ask you to stay off my talk page unless you have something meaningful to add or required by Wikipedia policy. VVikingTalkEdits 18:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Green Dot[edit]

I'll agree with you that some of my edits were too promotional and that you should include the entire history but to include this source which points to a 404 page and delete this source seems a little unfair. I really want to know your reasoning for deleting my source showing that MoneyPak is trying to make a change

Do you have a COI do you work for, paid by contracted with etc. etc. with GreenDot? If you are are you should not be making any changes directly to the article. If you are paid by them you need to disclose that on your talk page. Instead of going through your multiple promotional items one by one it is easier and normally better to revert the article back to a more stable version. If you wish to add the NBC news information in you will want to take it to the articles talk page. If you look at my edits, I don't really care that much about the article, I had (as far as I know) never edited Green dot in the past. Every editor at Wikipedia has things they like to do or that they work on. In my case I like to try to keep promotional garbage off the site. If your edits hadn't been mostly promotional or POV whitewashing you I probably wouldn't have cared you added the information from NBCnews. But now that I believe you have a COI and a POV and may be an undisclosed editor I don't feel it is appropriate for you to be working on this particular article at all according to well established wikipedia guidelines.--VVikingTalkEdits 20:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


@Viewmont Viking Why is the advert and COI template popping up again? there were minor changes in article. Also, sources were provided accordingly.

Kindly remove the template

May 2019[edit]

Hi. Take a look to this page. On the user page is irelevant information about Arthur Schopenhauer. Need s it to be deleted?