19:4619:46, 31 October 2014diffhist+175
Greg Orman
→Background: Somedifferentstuff wanted to remove Moore, Boyda, and Franken for lack of citation, but they are there now. We need to read the articles before we remove material.
19:0119:01, 31 October 2014diffhist+498
Greg Orman
No. Cwobeel and Somedifferent are engaging in an edit war now. I was trying to provide citations and they are editing while I add citations. This is an edit war. Also, Somedifferent has not even attempted discussion on talk page.
17:3117:31, 31 October 2014diffhist+37
Greg Orman
Undid revision 631907009 by
Cwobeel (
talk)No. This is not a compromise. You want to demand that the article only state what you want. There are reliable sources to support Reid and Clinton's name.
21:2721:27, 30 October 2014diffhist+2,785
Greg Orman
Undid revision 631798918 by
Cwobeel (
talk) You can't just remove a whole section of reliably sourced information because you think it is undue. You don't like the section then you go to RfC,etc.
17:0117:01, 29 October 2014diffhist−921
Marilinda Garcia
Undid revision 631626794 by
Cwobeel (
talk) "Articles in the Concord Monitor and Boston.com also raised the issue of whether the lack of attribution constituted plagiarism."
19:4619:46, 31 October 2014diffhist+175
Greg Orman
→Background: Somedifferentstuff wanted to remove Moore, Boyda, and Franken for lack of citation, but they are there now. We need to read the articles before we remove material.
19:0119:01, 31 October 2014diffhist+498
Greg Orman
No. Cwobeel and Somedifferent are engaging in an edit war now. I was trying to provide citations and they are editing while I add citations. This is an edit war. Also, Somedifferent has not even attempted discussion on talk page.
17:3117:31, 31 October 2014diffhist+37
Greg Orman
Undid revision 631907009 by
Cwobeel (
talk)No. This is not a compromise. You want to demand that the article only state what you want. There are reliable sources to support Reid and Clinton's name.
21:2721:27, 30 October 2014diffhist+2,785
Greg Orman
Undid revision 631798918 by
Cwobeel (
talk) You can't just remove a whole section of reliably sourced information because you think it is undue. You don't like the section then you go to RfC,etc.
17:0117:01, 29 October 2014diffhist−921
Marilinda Garcia
Undid revision 631626794 by
Cwobeel (
talk) "Articles in the Concord Monitor and Boston.com also raised the issue of whether the lack of attribution constituted plagiarism."