1autumnLeaf
April 2022 edit
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lord's Resistance Army, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Loafiewa (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice . Yes, i did not because it was obvious if you read further down the article. I had like to sort it out here with you before making the same edit. The edit in question is my “DELETION” of the line in relation to objectives of LRA (lords resistance army) specifically the one stating its objective being “Establishment of Christian Theocracy in Uganda”.
- Reasons for me deleting it include, 1) variance on accounts of ideology from the LRA officials itself including Commander Vincent Otti and Secretary of LRA James Alfred Obita in the same article under Title “IDEOLOGY”. 2) biased placing of a dubious goal in the intro (i.e LRA aims) at best ,as confirmed ,rather than contextualising it further down in body proding readers into a disingenuous direction rather than letting them make their own minds based on information available.
- Thats the reason why I didn’t make further edits down in the body where subjectivity of the information in contention is juxtaposed with opposite accounts rather than proclaiming it as a definite.
The edit will be made again (with this exact reason) post 48 hours from this message if you fail to come with reasonable objections. 1autumnLeaf (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:Lead says the lead summarises the article. Just because you don't like something is not a reason to remove it from the lead. NPOV requires us to explain the "sides". Doug Weller talk 09:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t know what you are referring to or what exact clause am I ,in breach of. I had like you to be more specific than that. As to my edits which pertains to “MOVING” of Mehmet Oz “CONTROVERSIAL” stance on “Pseudo science and alternate medicine” FROM section INTRO to CONTROVERSY . The edit has been made in regard to unbiased presentation of information for the lovely wiki community taking in due consideration “the Divide anything Political comes up with” rather than being presented as an absolute with no context whatsoever. My act of moving the few lines to section titled “CONTROVERSY” does more to contextualise information . You can reply on this thread back again within 48hours with your objections in detail rather than being vague. Thanks. 1autumnLeaf (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- As your response ignores my explanation of the purpose of the WP:LEAD I doubt that anything I say will be worthless, particularly as your response makes little sense (eg “the Divide anything Political comes up with”. Again, the lead should summarise the main aspects of the article. The context of the lead is the body of the article. In any case you should be using the article talk page, not giving ultimatums. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Instead of jabbing pejoratives the wiki community expects more from an admin. I am devastated that “divide of political stuff” is something alien to you. I wonder your reasons for reverting the edit to a one that clearly highlights negative as a “concise” of the body but not his many achievements and inventions further down the article. Glad you brought up, the Lead Guidelines which clearly state promoting “Neutral Point of View” and reverting to previous edit is anything but Neutral. Again i had like you to be precise and not vague and answer the question at hand as to “how moving it from INTRO to CONTROVERCY harms the integrity of article contended?” . Sorry my haste (if you call 48 hours that) to reply to the thread to make article better seems to you a ultimatum which its not. Thanks. Expecting replies not jabs.:) 1autumnLeaf (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
- Note that I have not edited the article. Looking at the lead, the first paragraph describes his achievements in 4 sentences. In the second paragraph there are two sentences summarising a lot of material from the body that is critical, and a third sentence which is again about an achievement of his with no criticism. The third para is one sentence factually stating that he is running for Senate. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Instead of jabbing pejoratives the wiki community expects more from an admin. I am devastated that “divide of political stuff” is something alien to you. I wonder your reasons for reverting the edit to a one that clearly highlights negative as a “concise” of the body but not his many achievements and inventions further down the article. Glad you brought up, the Lead Guidelines which clearly state promoting “Neutral Point of View” and reverting to previous edit is anything but Neutral. Again i had like you to be precise and not vague and answer the question at hand as to “how moving it from INTRO to CONTROVERCY harms the integrity of article contended?” . Sorry my haste (if you call 48 hours that) to reply to the thread to make article better seems to you a ultimatum which its not. Thanks. Expecting replies not jabs.:) 1autumnLeaf (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- As your response ignores my explanation of the purpose of the WP:LEAD I doubt that anything I say will be worthless, particularly as your response makes little sense (eg “the Divide anything Political comes up with”. Again, the lead should summarise the main aspects of the article. The context of the lead is the body of the article. In any case you should be using the article talk page, not giving ultimatums. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alerts for American politics and pseudoscience edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
May 2022 edit
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Mehmet Oz. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)