I see that since you cannot defend your entries you have sent me the COI marker on Wiki. Should we refer this to ArbCom?

Thank you for the guidance. I will take the advise and excercise great caution, but your skewed entries must also be neutral. That you take the same guidance to heart would be nice to not put any of us at risk.

As to the topic at hand, I have yet to hear anything from you to indicate that the changes have any problem so I will again look forward to an admission of the wrong doing on your part and assume that you will be coming to me with an apology for all of your accusations??

Thanks for your response.

1. The title was appropriately changed because of all of the other information that was in that section. If you can think of a more appropriate section header, please edit it accordingly.

2. I would have a similar comment on the word ‘pertinent’. Although if it just said “legislative files”, that may be too broad of a statement which is why the use of the word ‘pertinent’.

As to the rest of your post, it is not relevant to this blog topic. Although I would comment that maybe your grasp of a technique known as sarcasm may need to be adjusted on that last one.

1. When a person is arrested it is a matter of public record and is not just a personal legal matter. Personal Legal matters involve may include such items as wills, estate matters etc.. Olson was arrested for Domestic assault 2 count’s. It is no longer just a personal matter, but a matter between the people as represented by Sherburne co against Mark Olson. To state that it is a personal matter is misleading at best. This case isn’t Olson v, Mrs. Olson but Olson v Sherburne co and the people who reside in Sherburne Co. Nothing personal about it.
2. While there may or may not be a legislative file on Olson’s earlier abuse toward staff there is a record of it happening. Once again slipping in the word “pertinent” makes your correction deliberately misleading which of course was your job and intent.
3. Re: why Mr. Avidor is interested in Olson when he lives in Mlps and is not represented by Olson. Maybe it’s because of the Prt which will affect Avidor and not the residents of Olson’s own district. Maybe the question you should be asking is why Olson is so bent on a project for the cities that will not be of any use to those he represents. Also what Olson does in the house affects all of us regardless of where we life. Examples can be found in his nutty votes against items like bilge dumping in the Great lakes, claiming diabetes has a cure (water) but docs are afraid of the Diabetes Foundation. The Tom Cruise like rant about mental illness and water is the cure. His home experiment involving freezing a picture of water and observing that when it melted the level in the picture dropped there for there is no need to worry about the melting ice caps. “Let em melt” he said.

Thanks Avidor for increasing awareness about the nuttiest representative maybe in the history of the state.

Wikipedia’s guidlines on conflict of interest:

If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts and/or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.

…also:

Wikipedia is “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,

“I agree with Cleftor, maybe you need some counseling??”

Ken Avidor:

What do I need counseling for, Mr. Swanson?

As to the topic at hand, all of this started because I applied the neutrality rules that are well established on Wikipedia. I asked you several times directly if there is any content that I edited that you can show me is false (or otherwise skews the truth). Neither you (nor anyone else) has given any reason for this blog topic even to exist. It is simply another example of how you try to attack those of us with a reasonable sense of fairness. Additionally, this exemplifies why I know you (and the great majority of your arguments) simply cannot stand up to the facts. Your tactic of overload on distraction (getting off of the topic) will not work. You can either substantiate the premise of this topic or admit your loss in this argument. Case closed.