Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MDS International

message: Writing a "negative" article does not have to be an attack. The simple fact that the company in question in being "held in contempt" should at least be somewhat of an indication. Does Wikipedia consider the Contempt Ruling to be an "attack" by the Judge? 
I do not believe that ShellBabelfish is impartial. Again, the first article can only be considered an "attack" piece if the information was incorrect. The original order, issued by a Federal Judge in Michigan, holding this company in Contempt was linked to in the article. Wikipedia admins continue to revert this article to one that, in spirit, violates an agreement and a contempt order. All admins here have access to that order and have had for sometime. The press articles that are linked do not in anyway substantiate the comments that now appear on wikipedia in violation of that agreement. There is a reason that this company was held in contempt. This company was covered in the telecom news and is using that coverage to abrogate a court order. I believe that Shell is now at the point of active assistance. 
I was blocked from even editing this page due to the violations of the 3rr. I of course was aware of this rule but seeing as jeanclauduc has reverted the page 6 times previously as well as blanked the page numerous time, I assumed that Wikipedia was not taking this seriously. for example:
From jeanclauduc's talk page placed there on the 28th (yesterday) AFTER I was blocked by Shell WITHOUT WARNING. Remember that there are many reverts to this article. 
Please review Wikipedia policies.
While I understand your concern in being sure that the article about your company does not contain misinformation, you'll still need to edit within Wikipedia policy. Some things you may wish to review:
WP:OWN - No one editor owns a Wikipedia article; subjects of articles do not have sole control.
WP:COI - Guidelines for editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest.
WP:3RR - No more than three reverts should be done on an article in 24 hours.
Also, when you get a chance, please take a look through all of the policies: Wikipedia:List of policies
If you have any questions or anything I can help you with, please let me know. Shell babelfish 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impartiality 

message: If this is an "edit war" as the ADMIN seems to claim, why would one party be blocked without warning for placing sourced, factual material on your site while the other party keeps blanking the opposing party's page without receiving retribution from Wikipedia? It seems to suggest an uneven application of the rules. Maybe this type of subjective rules interpretation is the reason my professor will not accept Wikipedia as a source. I also fail to see how the mention of such facts concerning this "NOTIBILE" company's agreement not to do business in North America could be considered as not being a relevant fact for an encyclopedia that is so often viewed by North American Internet users. I also can't comprehend how court orders concerning this company, and its ability to do business in the United States, is not relevant information. I for one would not be happy with Wikipedia if I researched MDS International using Wikipedia and later found that ADMINS on the site blocked truthful information because they had chosen a side in this “edit war” and exercised such uneven application of its rules; information that would have caused me to take a different course of action if I had known the blocked content. 209.214.214.3 20:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Two Cents