User talk:Noncarborundum77

Welcome!

Hello, Noncarborundum77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noncarborundum77, as I have stated on the talk page of David Horrobin, I am concerned about your recent behaviour at the article. You created an account immediately after my own edits to the article and have used it for the sole purpose of reverting my edits and replacing reliably-sourced information with unsourced, unverifiable information that has no apparent basis other than personal knowledge or original research. In the process of making your edits, you have demonstrated what appears to be an unusual level of familiarity with the subject, one that I fear may interfere with your objectivity as a contributor. Finally, you have repeatedly leveled accusations at me, including charges of "obsession" and monomaniacism.

Please reflect on your reasons for editing this article and consider whether they are more in consonance with Wikipedia's interests or your own. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too am concerned about your behavior with regard to this article. Several of the edits I made, with reliably sourced material, have been removed, and the same goes for many previous edits by other editors. The pattern of your own edits has been characterised by a great keenness to root up any negative information available whatever about the subject, and place it in the article, while editing out much material which was well-sourced and referenced, but not so critical of the subject. Your assertion of unverifiability is based perhaps on my novice (yes I am new to this, and we all start somewhere) editing skills on Wikipedia, as I am still learning to use the referencing format etc. Be sure that all future edits will be well referenced, and please refrain from undoing those which simply don't fit your obviously extremely negative view of the subject. Of course I intend to edit more widely, when time allows, but I have a life outside Wikipedia, obviously. The monomaniacal comment comes from your insistence, over the disagreements of two editors, and despite its having its own section below, on the inclusion of the extreme phrase "snake oil salesman" in the lead. This seems to me a biasing and controversial assertion, which you will not even allow to be balanced with material from other obituaries. Under your constant radical revision, which have rubbished the substantial contributions of others, including those of Beechnut, sometimes minutes after they have been rather elegantly made and approved by MastCell- even the subjects obvious achievements are constantly undercut by negative commentary and what appears clear editorial slant. It would be useful if you would take your own advice on "reverting edits", since you do so in a very cavalier manner, even when those edits are indeed well sourced and referenced. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noncarborundum77 - if I were a conspiracy theorist I would suggest there are many witting and unwitting puppets of the New World Order editing Wikipedia, or one could put it down to a staggeringly co-incidental lack of due diligence when handling citations and quotations on certain pages...86.3.142.2 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]