Structuralists

Richard Gill

Can you hold off on the filleting of this article please. The cn templates only went on yesterday, and information you are removing is presumably correct, even if unsourced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Well let's see - if the information can be referenced to reliable sources, then it can be added back in. Structuralists (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

but who will look for the information once it is deleted? That is why the cn tags are used. It gives editors the information they should be searching on. Removing information that is likely to be correct from an article simply because it is unsourced is not ideal. To do it straight after the information was tagged, without any attempt to search for the sources, is not helpful. Also your edsum is not correct. The user is not blocked - they are only blocked from editing their own page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Well you must understand that I only did so as the tag at the top said the article may require cleanup now it has been discovered that there has been conflict of interest editing. The safe thing to do for now is remove the unverified stuff, and if reliable sources can be found to verify it, it can be added back in. No one is stopping you from going and finding the sources yourself to verify it and add it back in, I won't revert the reinstating of content if it has a valid source. Inserting unreferenced content though is not really helpful. He is also blocked from other pages. Structuralists (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The article needs cleanup but information that is both correct and due in an article is cleaned up by adding a citation, not by removing the information. Did you fail to find any citations for these? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If I may say so, you are being a bit aggressive towards me here for me essentially only trying to make sure articles abide by policy. From an internet search no, I have not been able to find citations for the information removed as of yet. In any case, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, i.e. not me. It also says that 'any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article'. The state of the article is pretty poor, wouldn't you say, with it being written in great part by a conflict of interest editor? Structuralists (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

well let's not just partially quote WP:V because this is what it says, and it is what I am saying:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Per the essay WP:REMOVAL it is only really correct to remove large chunks boldy and quickly when it is inaccurate, doubtful or problematic. Is the state of the article poor? Maybe - but it is poorer now for having had good information removed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes quite, it also says there that I should include an inline citation myself before removing it if I think the material is verifiable. I know that you are confident it is, but I have no such confidence that material on a page that we've discovered was created and edited on by a conflict of interest editor is verifiable.

In any case, now what is important is finding citations. Any material it says should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. It's true, perhaps I could have waited longer than a day to see if people could find sources, but in fairness that is still a fairly long interim amount of time if the material is so apparently easy to verify in any case. Structuralists (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Gill canvassing today

Are you aware that Gill, who's article you've been editing, had been trying to canvass again? He was on his Twitter page today asking for his followers to come and help him after you edited his page https://twitter.com/gill1109/status/1706191884853404049 MeltingDistrict (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

In this edit [1] you reverted back in challenged material into a BLP article, despite the previous edit summary drawing your attention to WP:BLPRESTORE and despite a revert by you less than 24 hours earlier in which you cite WP:ONUS,[2] so you are clearly well aware of that policy. You did not take this to talk. You might like to consider self reverting and doing so now as an act of good faith. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

But hold on a second, you don’t appear to have read my explanation in my edit summary. BLPRESTORE states that you must seek consensus before restoring disrupted content, but only if you have not significantly changed the content. As I said in my edit summary, I considerably changed the wording of the content in question. My edit was already in good faith and therefore I will not be self-reverting. Structuralists (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, this edit: [3] exactly reverts this edit: [4], which challenges your reformulation here [5] for the same reasons as the other attempts were challenged. You know what WP:ONUS says. But it was only a suggestion as I had though the edit warring was probably inadvertent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)