Talk:David Hundeyin

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: A draft existed though..

Reading Beans (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This page is being vandalized by people committed to preventing an embarrassing detail about the subject from being made part of his profile. Because this is a living person, it is important that the page and the content be non-partisan and neutral. I'm requesting your help in vetting the new texts and reversals on this page, so that important information is not omitted (through the efforts of the subject or his supporters) and unnecessary and biased information is not added (through the efforts of his opponents). 2600:1014:B010:311B:85D2:A3A5:C6ED:D40B (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Watch out for vandalism.

This page is being vandalized by people committed to preventing an embarrassing detail about the subject from being made part of his profile. Because this is a living person, it is important that the page and the content be non-partisan and neutral. I'm requesting your help in vetting the new texts and reversals on this page, so that important information is not omitted (through the efforts of the subject or his supporters) and unnecessary and biased information is not added (through the efforts of his opponents). 2600:1014:B010:311B:85D2:A3A5:C6ED:D40B (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• David Hundeyin.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Paragonpage changes

@Paragonpage, you need to stop and discuss this before reverting again. Your changes aren't supported by the sources, and since this is a WP:BLP the requirements are quite high. Do you have some sources calling him for example, a "controversial blogger" or any of the other claims you make? Cakelot1 (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to stop removing reliable information like his dismissal from Cambridge which was published by Cherwell and the Telegraph UK and properly cited accordingly. I will continue to write factual information. Paragonpage (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You welcome to write anything you like when it's sourced, but "controversial blogger", when it was unsourced, is a big red flag (please see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL). Even now I'm not sure it should be there. You've found a source now but really that's the wrong way round. You should first see what sources are saying and then edit based on that not add unsourced content and post-facto adding sources to back some of it up. As a reminder WWikipedia isn't about writing "THE FACTS" but instead summarizing what has been said in sources and backing them up (WP:!TRUTHFINDERS). Cakelot1 (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Paragonpage; please stop your reverts on the article. This revert are taking out the cleanup done by @Morbidthoughts and others.. This unnecessary reverts might result into block as it’s obvious that you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Kaizenify (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Kaizenify stop editing this article with partisan and biased information like referring to the subject as an "activist" or claims that West Africa Weekly is a news platform as opposed to a blog that it actually is without citing relevant sources.

The content I added are properly cited. Why do you keep removing it?

Paragonpage (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You still went ahead to revert this without a proper justification. it’s then obvious you are bent on distorting information here by creating bias info about the subject. You have performed multiple 3R revert which is tantamount to a temporary block and as the article creator, I would not want to engage you further. So calling on other editors who have contributed extensively to the cleanup of this page like Morbidthoughts, @Cakelot1 e.t.c to please weigh on this. Thanks Kaizenify (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kaizenify Do you know how active is WikiProject Nigeria and whether it help to ask for more editors views there. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Paragonpage I would really recommend you read WP:3RR, you can't revert to your preferred version 3 or more times, it is considered an edit war and will get you blocked, no matter how correct your edits are. I would recommend you Self-revert to the stable version and engage in discussion with other editors like @Kaizenify here. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the subject of edit war and vandalism around this page at the very heat of it @Kaizenify and I admire your dedication to all articles regardless of their national categories @Cakelot1.

The controversy section though largely built on a single source (a student blog, though powerful) without any comments from Oxford herself has been thoroughly written to filter off biases against the subject matter. Danidamiobi (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Cherwell is WP:RSSM, not a blog nor is it self-published. What also matters is that other RS have given this source and its reports coverage.[1][2][3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Defamation case

The default judgment against Hundeyin[4] should not be in his article until there are secondary RS reporting on the matter per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)