I have reverted your additions to the James Grier Miller article. An obiturary is a good source, but copying verbatim with no attribution runs afoul of Wikipedia:Copyvio. In accordance with policy, I have reverted the article to the last version prior the the offending additions. Michaelbusch 06:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read and understand WP:COI. Your edits to Centrist Party (United States) betray a bias, which you admit to in some of your postings to talk pages. Be exceptionally careful in your edits to articles relating to politics. I find minimal media coverage of your party, which is fine, but you must always remember that this is Wikipedia, not a soapbox (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Michaelbusch 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael, Thank you for your edits and concerns regarding my edits. I changed only minor things on the page which were inaccurate. Someone said I had "studied with" Jim Miller, but that was incorrect. So I changed the word to "worked with". I don't understand how you can say I am portraying a bias when I am merely changing something that is incorrect to that which is correct? It does not make sense. I would like to understand your reasoning. Is there some sort of wiki rule that says things should be incorrect? You are in the Los Angeles area. Let's meet and discuss. --Jpr2000 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Read and understand Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, WP:COI, WP:LIVING, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Verifiablity. Accuracy is one thing, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Michaelbusch 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I appreciate the work you and others have put into the page. Second, Why don't we meet and discuss. I really do want to understand your perspectives. I do not want to treat the page as a soap box, but rather as a place where people can get a wiki perspective on the development of the centrist party and its efforts. There is no conflict of interest if I correct something that is inaccurate. If you would rather do the corrections than I, then that would be fine also. Would you like more information from someone that worked at the University of the World, Would you like me to post accurate data here so you can add it to the page? This is a new effort, but we have some exceptional people working on it and we will be updating things soon. Would really like to meet you sometime soon. Best, John --Jpr2000 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place for a 'wiki perspective' on anything. This is an encyclopedia. You may post information you think should be in the article on its talk page. Michaelbusch 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I am having a hard time understanding your understanding of the English language? A perspective has to do with seeing clearly and seeing through. An Encyclopedia has to do with information from branches of knowledge and comprehensive knowledge about particular things. Is the wikipedia about something else other than clarity and knowledge? In my usage and context of "wiki perspective" I am referring to clarity and knowledge. Do you think that wikipedia is about something else? Or did you just misunderstand the word "perspective" as it pertains to my usage and wikipedia? Please clarify. Best, John --Jpr2000 02:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took "Wiki perspective" to be that you somehow think that this is an open forum to discuss your party (similiar statements were made by Panico at User_talk:Rpanico). It is not. It is also not a place for you to provide information on your party. This is an encyclopedia, where the most important information about your party may be preserved and accessed. Given that you understand this much, you must understand two more things: what constitutes "important" is determined by consensus and bound by WP:NPOV. The latter is non-negotiable and is why I reverted your large addition to the article and recommend that you avoid editing the article yourself. This is a difficult issue, which is covered under WP:LIVING and WP:COI. Michaelbusch 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I am in agreement. When I said "wiki perspective", I did not mean "bias of perspective" but encyclopedic perspective on wikipedia.org. To verify the existence of the University of the World office you would have to call the building manager at the address of 1055 Torrey Pines road in La Jolla. Someone said on the talk page that I am trying to make myself look good. If that were true I would have posted a lot more data on the CP web site about my achievements. That would be silly. I am not trying to promote myself on the CP site, we are promoting ideas. The only reason I posted any data about myself on the site was because of the emails we received asking for some background. After discussion we decided to put minimal background info on line. We do not want this to be about me. Otherwise, I suggest you remove any background data on Founder. The only published, id est verifiable, data on my background is at the US patent office for a time management device I invented. Further patents are in process. I have never been one to seek public attention beyond the scope of my work. As to consensus there is a visible flaw in potential. A consensus view proffered by limited capacity in analysis without substantive inquiry and lacking published sources can only net a limited, biased perspective, which is less than capable of netting a "wiki perspective" (meaning literally a clear view offering accurate knowledge and understanding of encyclopedic nature). --Jpr2000 20:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]