Content deleted Content added
MjolnirPants 8,581 edits |
|||
Line 357: :::I had a sharp intake of breath when I read that she had overcome the difficulty of actually being a ''socialist'' to get the position of Mayor. Gosh. A socialist!! who would have thought it. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the grumpy dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 15:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC) == Andy Ngo - an admin or team of admins need to step in == == Andy Ngo - an admin or team of admins need to step in == Line 375 ⟶ 376: :::Sarcasm of that kind is equally inappropriate in this venue. Please present your concerns clearly and concisely. From what I can tell this should be addressed on the article talk page or on an editor’s talk page if you believe that there is a behavioral issue here. If no result comes of the talk page discussion then this would be a good place to turn. What I can address is the contention that the existence of a criticism section is a “clear breach" of BLP: you are mistaken, it is not. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC) ::::I do apologize for the sarcasm. From [[WP:BLPBALANCE]]: "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and '''section headings are broadly neutral'''." And from [[WP:BLPUNDEL]]: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the '''burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material'''. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." [[User:TomReagan90|TomReagan90]] ([[User talk:TomReagan90|talk]]) 16:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::I'm curious how you explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=next&oldid=1031535066&diffmode=source this edit summary], given the fact that the source is ''quoted referring to Ngo in the very citation you removed''. I find this especially concerning in light of your demonstrably false claim above that {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}} used a deceptive edit summary. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 15:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC) :::::::The source doesn't even mention Ngo. It's either an old link, or it never existed. Click on the URL. That's why I deleted it. [[User:TomReagan90|TomReagan90]] ([[User talk:TomReagan90|talk]]) 16:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC) :::::::Excuse me? My "demonstrably false claim above that NorthBySouthBaranof used a deceptive edit summary"? Please substantiate this claim. How was NorthBySouthBaranof's edit summary not deceptive? He referred only to the two "sections" I removed. Yet he deleted the entirety of my contributions, with justification - until now (except for the mistake I admitted to regarding the linking of the book in the bibliography). By reverting all my contributions (which is surely a breach of 1RR) he undid, what I regard as, the improvements I made to the lede. So, please explain your charge MjolnirPants [[User:TomReagan90|TomReagan90]] ([[User talk:TomReagan90|talk]]) 16:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that before NorthBySouthBaranof mass reversion of all my edits, my version of the lede read like so: Line 388 ⟶ 389: Which I regard as significantly more neutral, informative and encyclopedic when compared with what stands now. But I am of course happy to be shown to be wrong. [[User:TomReagan90|TomReagan90]] ([[User talk:TomReagan90|talk]]) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC) ==[[:Elevations RTC]]== | |||