“Truthfulness, verifiability, neutrality, … or what I learned to stay away from coffee, to avoid engaging in endless discussions that ended hogging all my time and left me beaten. I clarify this for someone you used to save the read. In any case the issue seems fundamental to Wikipedia, its future and credibility. I copy what I put in a dediscusi n page: Search erase late I think I delete the query, which makes me frustrated, I understand that for two reasons. First, I spent several hours investigating the case, and I suspect that few pay attention to the issue have come to see the result of my effort, so I am not aware has been taken into account in practice, the case seems irrefutable , as now indicate, but only Chuck Norris has submitted its opinion to the contrary, with arguments that seem irrelevant to the case.Second, Wikipedia should not be used as a means of promoting a business, and few cases have been clearer: the subject is incompetent from the scientific point and I guess that doctor is no reason to doubt the legitimacy of some of their titles (I seems a case of police court), as although not impossible to 100 of good faith in the proceedings which led to his doctorate in biology, the more parsimonious hypothesis is that there was improper conduct and multiple complications.I saw a new tactic: if you can not see that your account is of particular purpose, change ‘above’ to ‘mostly’ maybe ‘to’ maybe ‘and’ too ‘for’ also ‘in the odd hundred articles before putting your (or your) posting .– LP (Talk) 15:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC) In recent days I have found involved in another case, in discussing Neocatechumenal, with the result a warning for me and the blocking of another or, to defend by argument, and a commendable patience, the Neocatechumenal be described primarily as an organization or company (Neocatechumenal Way), and you can not begin the article by saying that is an itinerary and concealing an association of persons.RoyFocker, with whom I had a good relationship and I always seemed to dialogue, warned blocked by lack of respect for the speaker ( “I’ll sincerely ask that you avoid this kind of provocation”) by saying: “Did I miss I do something, or the Neocatechumenal is part of the Catholic Church Are you going to deny that “. Then it was blocked by Netito: ‘:: Do not you stop accusing them of lying and conspiracy, and all that … So you’re locked three days since you were warned. Net’ito) (22:58 31 Aug 2008 (UTC) “strongly advised to review the differential and, better still, the whole debate. This particular case has made me remember a little story of Jardiel Poncela in which a friend tells another in disbelief that these seemingly gentle old ladies across the gate of the park are actually beasts let loose, and it shows in recently, by the simple process of question them repeatedly with a “hey, tiger!”.I do not remember clearly, but I think that eventually the guard came and took the old people roaring. In this case he has failed to roar and foam, but some ironic or angry response, I think more than justified. I do not know if this tactic taught in any organization. I came here three years ago with the intention of bringing in the issues of Zoology and Botany, and Natural Science, where I write almost without consultation, but I started to “patrol” and enter the community, consultation deletion of Bach Flowers, … I found myself spending hours studying for every minute spent ing (from what I have gained much) and trapped in the effort to avoid that Wikipedia is the perfect ad needed by all the charlatans and all sects.I know there are two ways to interpret my current annoyance: First, I am a paranoid obsessed confusing his views with the truth, and second, they are actually gaining control of Wikipedia, or in the provinces I visited, the vendors of all stripes. So instead took weeks wondering what belongs to truth, objectivity, on Wikipedia. For objectivity understand the difference between what anyone can see and what you can see only the chosen few, which may be questioned in relation to the reality that surrounds us, and what is not, because it belongs to the inner self. I assume that for me, and I need to know whether to Wikipedia as well, there is a difference between knowing and believing, between belief justified, empirical corroboration, or believe otherwise, only with faith, without justification, in obedience to an ancient tradition faith in the authority of a prophet is not moot, or because it gives us our left ventricle.