This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is that the right infobox for this subject? -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:2023:8A36:7523:6635 ( talk) 18:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
An editor has just made two apparently either vandal or IDONTLIKEIT reverts of proper, and properly sourced, text. I would urge them not to do it again, to avoid sanctions. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:3959:A16D:E825:EF6A ( talk) 06:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The recent deleted text is all properly sourced to RS refs, per WP rules. There is no requirement that it be sourced to academic sources. The drive by deletion was improper. 2600:1017:B81B:CFDA:FC40:BB5B:7D93:1970 ( talk) 19:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I have decided to create an account (formerly edited as 216.146.25.74) to engage in a more efficient discussion with an IP-hopping editor who, it seems, thinks that logged-out editing from different IPs somehow shields them from responsibility. After I introduced a substantial overhaul to the article, removing bias and and balancing one-sided coverage, this IP editor immediately attacked me on my talk page, claiming I have a conflict of interest (in my opinion, that question should be asked to them, given their propensity for adding opinions of certain politicians not only to the body of the article but also to the lead). I've studied Wikipedia guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (due and undue weight, balancing aspects) and Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and have come to a conclusion that the IP-hopping editor severely violates Wikipedia policies. Providing reliable sources is not the only criteria for inclusion, and not every event related to the organization in question should be documented. I suggest the IP editor register, just as I did, and engage in a constructive conversation. Otherwise, I'll have to consider seeking admin protection for this article. Trenosky ( talk) 22:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2023/05/22/safesport-goal-protect-athletes-abuse-criticism/70236315007/ 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5D11:CBD:BF02:4F59 ( talk) 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The IP editor had waited for a month to once again push their agenda to the lead, hoping no one would notice. I kept some of their edits, which are reliable, while removing those that were not agreed upon here on the talk page. Just to reiterate, I am highly suspicious of their logged-out editing and IP-hopping, which I see as an attempt to make it harder to track their edits. They could have created an account, but they refused to do so on multiple occasions for undisclosed reasons, which raises further concerns. Trenosky ( talk) 10:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
How is KNKX not WP:RS, or two stories covering Wiskel and Jordan's SafeSport cases in detail, with responses from both the complainant, the accused, SafeSport, and USSF, not both WP:IS and WP:SIGCOV? This is not about a substantial line of content, only to list a notable case. - Socccc ( talk) 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Separately, how is it WP:EW as suggested by this edit summary to restore a removed line with an additional relevant source — that the SafeSport cases had been re-opened, and confirmation that their coaching licenses had been suspended — that was published after the first reversion, more than 24 hours after the initial reversion? - Socccc ( talk) 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is that the right infobox for this subject? -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:2023:8A36:7523:6635 ( talk) 18:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
An editor has just made two apparently either vandal or IDONTLIKEIT reverts of proper, and properly sourced, text. I would urge them not to do it again, to avoid sanctions. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:3959:A16D:E825:EF6A ( talk) 06:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The recent deleted text is all properly sourced to RS refs, per WP rules. There is no requirement that it be sourced to academic sources. The drive by deletion was improper. 2600:1017:B81B:CFDA:FC40:BB5B:7D93:1970 ( talk) 19:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I have decided to create an account (formerly edited as 216.146.25.74) to engage in a more efficient discussion with an IP-hopping editor who, it seems, thinks that logged-out editing from different IPs somehow shields them from responsibility. After I introduced a substantial overhaul to the article, removing bias and and balancing one-sided coverage, this IP editor immediately attacked me on my talk page, claiming I have a conflict of interest (in my opinion, that question should be asked to them, given their propensity for adding opinions of certain politicians not only to the body of the article but also to the lead). I've studied Wikipedia guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (due and undue weight, balancing aspects) and Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and have come to a conclusion that the IP-hopping editor severely violates Wikipedia policies. Providing reliable sources is not the only criteria for inclusion, and not every event related to the organization in question should be documented. I suggest the IP editor register, just as I did, and engage in a constructive conversation. Otherwise, I'll have to consider seeking admin protection for this article. Trenosky ( talk) 22:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2023/05/22/safesport-goal-protect-athletes-abuse-criticism/70236315007/ 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5D11:CBD:BF02:4F59 ( talk) 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The IP editor had waited for a month to once again push their agenda to the lead, hoping no one would notice. I kept some of their edits, which are reliable, while removing those that were not agreed upon here on the talk page. Just to reiterate, I am highly suspicious of their logged-out editing and IP-hopping, which I see as an attempt to make it harder to track their edits. They could have created an account, but they refused to do so on multiple occasions for undisclosed reasons, which raises further concerns. Trenosky ( talk) 10:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
How is KNKX not WP:RS, or two stories covering Wiskel and Jordan's SafeSport cases in detail, with responses from both the complainant, the accused, SafeSport, and USSF, not both WP:IS and WP:SIGCOV? This is not about a substantial line of content, only to list a notable case. - Socccc ( talk) 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Separately, how is it WP:EW as suggested by this edit summary to restore a removed line with an additional relevant source — that the SafeSport cases had been re-opened, and confirmation that their coaching licenses had been suspended — that was published after the first reversion, more than 24 hours after the initial reversion? - Socccc ( talk) 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)