`  == 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.  02:07, 3 July 2006  == 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 that's a clear violation of Wiki's 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 Wikipedia's 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 Y's 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 Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism 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 Wikipedia:Sock 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 re-write 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 Wikipedia's 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, John254, I am disappointed, but not really surprised. Mostly I am disapppointed at Wikipedia itself, for allowing its so-called watchdogs to ignore the specific things they're 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 re-writing it after conforming to Wikipedia's rules, but what's 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 re-post 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; I'm not suggesting that. But with something that fits the guidelines that you supposedly care so much about.   Mark`