This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first point, in the intro, I was clarifying what was otherwise uncommon English wording. Also, I found English sources that replaced information reinforced by a French source. In
WP:A, it shows that WP:V § Non-English sources aren't preferable because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of readers in the English-language, sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
I wanted to address the changes I made to the article, and explain why I'm hitting "undo" on your deletions and certain additions. As to the "unexplained removal of content," on the second point, the biography, the <ref>{{cite news|title=PALACE COERCION PLAGUES MOROCCO'S REAL ESTATE SECTOR|url=http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09CASABLANCA226/?q=Mounir%20Majidi|accessdate=14 August 2012|newspaper=Consulate Casablanca|date=Dec 11, 2009}}</ref> leads to a dead link. http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09CASABLANCA226/?q=Mounir%20Majidi Doesn't exist.
The same points I made about the intro can be attributed to undoing the 'Early Life,' and 'Business' sections, your changes aren't explained or justified, as you're using French sources, again against WP:A to remove three entire paragraphs of my contribution using reliable English sources. We can start a talk section under the page itself if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog ( talk • contribs)
I think I've stated clearly why I do not agree with your edit, which removed information & references from the article. It's not my opinion or my wishes but wikipedia has rules and guidelines, by which the community generally abides. You do not remove references and properly cited material just because you find it "disagreeable". Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blog it just follows what others have said.
You are ignoring my points and replying beside the point. I think my points would be clear for 3rd parties. In particular, a dead link does not mean the source is not acceptable. Your accusation that the older version is an WP:Attack page is utterly ridiculous really, as is you, accusing me of "bullying" you, that's laughable. You seem eager to quickly drift from the topic to make comments about me ( WP:APR) -- Tachfin ( talk) 10:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
So that we might reach a compromise, I think we should categorize our disagreements with two main points:
1. The passages you've undone WP:PEACOCK formulations)
2. The controversy over the corruption charges
Let's focus on the first point. Here are my observations for each section:
You deleted this passage , including his affiliation as ‘’President of the FUS,’’ yet shockingly, you kept source (5).
Moreover, I don’t see why we should be adding the phrase referring to Mounir Majidi as ‘’as one of the top-3 most influential people in Morocco,’’ since we can’t verify that information and that isn’t being said by reliable press sources.
Deleting the passage about Mounir Majidi’s studies is completely unjustified. These are all factual, well sourced elements that offer a more precise look into a more true biography.
I added factual information about the career of Majidi, cited by many French sources as well as the French Wikipedia page. The successes mentioned on the page are referenced from and supported by numerous articles with reliable sources, and do not create a conflict with WP:PEACOCK. This is much in the way that argumentation, negative or otherwise, does not constitute act of denigration when supported by numerous articles. However, if you feel that some areas need to be reformulated, why not propose a new version? All you've done is undo my additions without bothering to amend them. This practice makes it impossible to negotiation or compromise. I think we all have an essential duty to discuss the page, and by just hitting undo, you harm the quality of the page, which is already very incomplete. Wikipedia is a place of the exchange of ideas and debate. I propose that you list the details the page that you have a problem with. This will help us all continue to enrich the page and come to a compromise.
I think it should be obvious by now, and in light of the recent Panama papers/Swiss Leaks (and the ton of other mess Majidi has involved himself in), that Majidi/his legions of multi-million $ lawyers, have resorted to PR agents (namely the account user:Chewbakadog whose only activity so far on Wikipedia is dwelling this page/similar dubious West Africa businesspeople/politicans). This account, being probably paid for doing so, has invested an incredible energy and (almost religious) dedication in trying to prevent my edits to this page, and lawyer their way around wiki policies, in lengthy discussion, for which I, as an "unpaid" simple contributor has no time for. Such a shame Wikipedia has become so easy to game. -- Tachfin ( talk) 11:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first point, in the intro, I was clarifying what was otherwise uncommon English wording. Also, I found English sources that replaced information reinforced by a French source. In
WP:A, it shows that WP:V § Non-English sources aren't preferable because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of readers in the English-language, sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
I wanted to address the changes I made to the article, and explain why I'm hitting "undo" on your deletions and certain additions. As to the "unexplained removal of content," on the second point, the biography, the <ref>{{cite news|title=PALACE COERCION PLAGUES MOROCCO'S REAL ESTATE SECTOR|url=http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09CASABLANCA226/?q=Mounir%20Majidi|accessdate=14 August 2012|newspaper=Consulate Casablanca|date=Dec 11, 2009}}</ref> leads to a dead link. http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09CASABLANCA226/?q=Mounir%20Majidi Doesn't exist.
The same points I made about the intro can be attributed to undoing the 'Early Life,' and 'Business' sections, your changes aren't explained or justified, as you're using French sources, again against WP:A to remove three entire paragraphs of my contribution using reliable English sources. We can start a talk section under the page itself if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog ( talk • contribs)
I think I've stated clearly why I do not agree with your edit, which removed information & references from the article. It's not my opinion or my wishes but wikipedia has rules and guidelines, by which the community generally abides. You do not remove references and properly cited material just because you find it "disagreeable". Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blog it just follows what others have said.
You are ignoring my points and replying beside the point. I think my points would be clear for 3rd parties. In particular, a dead link does not mean the source is not acceptable. Your accusation that the older version is an WP:Attack page is utterly ridiculous really, as is you, accusing me of "bullying" you, that's laughable. You seem eager to quickly drift from the topic to make comments about me ( WP:APR) -- Tachfin ( talk) 10:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
So that we might reach a compromise, I think we should categorize our disagreements with two main points:
1. The passages you've undone WP:PEACOCK formulations)
2. The controversy over the corruption charges
Let's focus on the first point. Here are my observations for each section:
You deleted this passage , including his affiliation as ‘’President of the FUS,’’ yet shockingly, you kept source (5).
Moreover, I don’t see why we should be adding the phrase referring to Mounir Majidi as ‘’as one of the top-3 most influential people in Morocco,’’ since we can’t verify that information and that isn’t being said by reliable press sources.
Deleting the passage about Mounir Majidi’s studies is completely unjustified. These are all factual, well sourced elements that offer a more precise look into a more true biography.
I added factual information about the career of Majidi, cited by many French sources as well as the French Wikipedia page. The successes mentioned on the page are referenced from and supported by numerous articles with reliable sources, and do not create a conflict with WP:PEACOCK. This is much in the way that argumentation, negative or otherwise, does not constitute act of denigration when supported by numerous articles. However, if you feel that some areas need to be reformulated, why not propose a new version? All you've done is undo my additions without bothering to amend them. This practice makes it impossible to negotiation or compromise. I think we all have an essential duty to discuss the page, and by just hitting undo, you harm the quality of the page, which is already very incomplete. Wikipedia is a place of the exchange of ideas and debate. I propose that you list the details the page that you have a problem with. This will help us all continue to enrich the page and come to a compromise.
I think it should be obvious by now, and in light of the recent Panama papers/Swiss Leaks (and the ton of other mess Majidi has involved himself in), that Majidi/his legions of multi-million $ lawyers, have resorted to PR agents (namely the account user:Chewbakadog whose only activity so far on Wikipedia is dwelling this page/similar dubious West Africa businesspeople/politicans). This account, being probably paid for doing so, has invested an incredible energy and (almost religious) dedication in trying to prevent my edits to this page, and lawyer their way around wiki policies, in lengthy discussion, for which I, as an "unpaid" simple contributor has no time for. Such a shame Wikipedia has become so easy to game. -- Tachfin ( talk) 11:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)