Sayfol   If the pov of Sayfol is not neutral I apologise but this is the only pov anyone has of it No other information is available from any other source except eyewitnesses    July    Changes to VNN article   I changed the article because the current article stated nothing at all about the website but instead simply bashed its creator Whether accurate or inaccurate it should have been posted to an article titled Alex Linder Although thats a clear violation of Wikis rules it was my brief article that is considered vandalism  I admit I should have put more thought into it and constructed it better but it is still a vast improvement on the article it replaced   Mark Richards  Thank you for your comments  However when I first reverted the edits by  to Vanguard News Network I placed a Neutral Point of View notice on s page not a vandalism warning  Please understand that this version of the article is inconsistent with Wikipedias Neutral Point of View policy  It contains many statements that are not neutral because they take opinions promoted by Vanguard News Network and phrase them as facts  When writing Wikipedia articles one needs to be careful to attribute opinions to those that hold them  For example instead of saying that Vanguard News Network is trying to inform people of Y  which assumes the existence of Y and that convincing people of Ys existence is informing them  it might be more appropriate to state that Vanguard News Network claims that it is trying to inform people of its belief in the existence of Y or perhaps Vanguard News Network promotes its claims about the existence of Y After I first reverted the edit by  instead of discussing this issue or rewriting the edit to conform to the Neutral Point of View policy  simply reinserted the disputed edit into the article  I treated this as vandalism because according to WikipediaCounterVandalism Unit in the case of Neutral Point of View policy violations If the user persists in reverting to his preferred version of the article however that may be considered vandalism  Furthermore the subsequent use of various IP addresses to repeatedly reinsert the same edit tended to convey an impression of bad faith  Please see WikipediaSock puppetry  Making all of your contributions under the same named user account and discussing issues such as my Neutral Point of View notice rather than simply reverting the disputed edits might tend to avoid conflicts with other Wikipedia editors  If you wish to rewrite your edit in scrupulous accordance with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy using your named user account you may do so  However this this version of the article is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedias Neutral Point of View policy and it cannot remain in its current form    Additionally your version of the article gives excessive prominence to the views of Vanguard News Network and does not treat the views of its opponents  It is essential to the Neutral Point of View policy that both sides of the issue should be presented    Well John I am disappointed but not really surprised Mostly I am disapppointed at Wikipedia itself for allowing its socalled watchdogs to ignore the specific things theyre watching for as long as they support their own personal opinion  You notice that I no longer replace the VNN article At first I considered rewriting it after conforming to Wikipedias rules but whats the use You are determined to allow only your personally fiction on the site so I have no reason to believe you would tolerate any truthful article  This whole thing started because the article that you continually repost is so bad If you were an honest man and truly cared about the integrity of Wikipedia you would replace it Not with my article mind you Im not suggesting that But with something that fits the guidelines that you supposedly care so much about   Mark