It's not okay to remove a tag without putting an argument as to why it shouldn't be there. Gumsaint ( talk) 03:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- KateO15 Do keep an eye on the 3 reverts rule too Sure it's a code of practice rather than a rule but it works to keep things civil. Gumsaint ( talk) 04:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I really dont understand why you are fixated on amending my updates and making them inaccurate and not reflective of recent events nor where these people work. Is there a problem?
- It's superfluous detail that is not necessary and appears to be being inserted to push a promotional line for TAI. It's not necessary other than in the most abbreviated of forms. I've attempted to be quite accomodating. Gumsaint ( talk) 06:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
With respect to the Ben Oquist page you simply can't make sweeping edits to a page based on a claim of bias and expect them to stand. Gumsaint ( talk) 03:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Gumsaint. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Ben Oquist have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Help Desk. Thanks.
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Ben Oquist, you may be
blocked from editing.
Hello. Thank you for feedback however, I am not vandalizing the page. It is obvious from your edits that you have a problem with Ben Oquist. You need to take a look at my amendments to see they are simply removing the bias and misinformation you keep including. Please feel free to complain as I am sure that any independent review will show you are in the wrong.
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Ben Oquist.
I'm too busy at the moment to attend to each of your edits on Ben Oquist but I will certainly respond to each of them in due course when time permits. Removing content is very difficult and much harder than adding controversial material. This content has stood for some years and only ever been contested by someone at TAI which suggests an attempt to paint a certain picture. As previously pointed out the subject's only public interest lies in these controversial references so they require inclusion or the page ceases to be of much interest. As I have previously pointed out I don't know the subject, have little interest in him beyond the public record and any allegations of bias have no basis in fact. Gumsaint ( talk) 01:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The claims you make are simply not supported by the citation. While the articles cited are behind a paywall there are secondary listings of them that are accessible and there is nothing in them to support the claims you make. Gumsaint ( talk) 04:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Because these allegations of bias have been going on for some time I will introduce a Request for Comments tag following further disruptive edits on the Ben Oquist page and get some second opinions. Like any editor I could be blind to my own bias to an extent but in the case of this page I just struggle to identify why I would be biased. The guy is a political agitator and his page is not going to read like a spotless account of a life-well-lived. Arguably, if it did you would wonder whether he was doing his job. Gumsaint ( talk) 04:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not okay to remove a tag without putting an argument as to why it shouldn't be there. Gumsaint ( talk) 03:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- KateO15 Do keep an eye on the 3 reverts rule too Sure it's a code of practice rather than a rule but it works to keep things civil. Gumsaint ( talk) 04:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I really dont understand why you are fixated on amending my updates and making them inaccurate and not reflective of recent events nor where these people work. Is there a problem?
- It's superfluous detail that is not necessary and appears to be being inserted to push a promotional line for TAI. It's not necessary other than in the most abbreviated of forms. I've attempted to be quite accomodating. Gumsaint ( talk) 06:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
With respect to the Ben Oquist page you simply can't make sweeping edits to a page based on a claim of bias and expect them to stand. Gumsaint ( talk) 03:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Gumsaint. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Ben Oquist have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Help Desk. Thanks.
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Ben Oquist, you may be
blocked from editing.
Hello. Thank you for feedback however, I am not vandalizing the page. It is obvious from your edits that you have a problem with Ben Oquist. You need to take a look at my amendments to see they are simply removing the bias and misinformation you keep including. Please feel free to complain as I am sure that any independent review will show you are in the wrong.
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Ben Oquist.
I'm too busy at the moment to attend to each of your edits on Ben Oquist but I will certainly respond to each of them in due course when time permits. Removing content is very difficult and much harder than adding controversial material. This content has stood for some years and only ever been contested by someone at TAI which suggests an attempt to paint a certain picture. As previously pointed out the subject's only public interest lies in these controversial references so they require inclusion or the page ceases to be of much interest. As I have previously pointed out I don't know the subject, have little interest in him beyond the public record and any allegations of bias have no basis in fact. Gumsaint ( talk) 01:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The claims you make are simply not supported by the citation. While the articles cited are behind a paywall there are secondary listings of them that are accessible and there is nothing in them to support the claims you make. Gumsaint ( talk) 04:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Because these allegations of bias have been going on for some time I will introduce a Request for Comments tag following further disruptive edits on the Ben Oquist page and get some second opinions. Like any editor I could be blind to my own bias to an extent but in the case of this page I just struggle to identify why I would be biased. The guy is a political agitator and his page is not going to read like a spotless account of a life-well-lived. Arguably, if it did you would wonder whether he was doing his job. Gumsaint ( talk) 04:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)