| Revision as of 16:30, 24 September 2022 editSideswipe9th (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers11,284 edits →Cyber Anakin restore: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:55, 24 September 2022 edit undoSideswipe9th (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers11,284 edits →Cyber Anakin restore: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Please self revert {{diff2|1112089900|this edit}}. This is a completely improper restoration per ], which quite clearly states {{tq|When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. '''If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.'''}} Emphasis mine. ] (]) 16:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | Please self revert {{diff2|1112089900|this edit}}. This is a completely improper restoration per ], which quite clearly states {{tq|When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. '''If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.'''}} Emphasis mine. ] (]) 16:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :There is really no indication that the section he had removed is problematic at all. For instance, ] is a pretty reliable source as established in https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#RfC%3A_Taiwan_News. In other words, he was whacking up the molehill and you should be smart not to do that. Regardless, I will temporarily self-revert, and put up an short ad hoc discussion with an administrator, which is essentially a "third opinion" route since according to the original deleter's edit contributions, he was verging on being a tendentious editor and arguing with him may become a net disruptive instead. ] (]) 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. If you could ping me (you can use the {{t|re}} template for that) to that discussion or stick a notice on my talk page with a link to where you've raised it, I'd appreciate it. ] (]) 16:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::P.S, I know it can be frustrating, however back in July I made a similar removal at another BLP. At the time I cited ] in my edit summary, however another editor restored the content without discussion. I then raised it at the ] (]), where it was affirmed that per both the ] and ] policies that the editor who wishes to restore content that has been challenged in good faith must seek a consensus at the article's talk page. ] (]) 16:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note: Please do not remove comments made on editor talk pages, as done in in these two edits; {{diff2|1112097642}}, {{diff2|1112097685}}, that are non-disruptive per ]. It is standard practice to notify an editor about a discussion involving content they have added or removed from an article per ], and using the {{t|please see}} template is one such way to do so. ] (]) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, it's guaranteed to generate a WikiDrama given his tendentious editing, so there's a reason to make it an ad-hoc "third opinion" discussion in the first place.] (]) 18:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All forms of ] on Misplaced Pages involve the original editor or editors, unless they are currently subject to a block, topic ban, or page ban. This is necessary as it allows for new editors to query the involved parties as to why they have added or removed content. ] (]) 18:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:55, 24 September 2022
Cyber Anakin restore
Please self revert this edit. This is a completely improper restoration per WP:BLPRESTORE, which quite clearly states When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.
Emphasis mine. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is really no indication that the section he had removed is problematic at all. For instance, Taiwan News is a pretty reliable source as established in https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#RfC%3A_Taiwan_News. In other words, he was whacking up the molehill and you should be smart not to do that. Regardless, I will temporarily self-revert, and put up an short ad hoc discussion with an administrator, which is essentially a "third opinion" route since according to the original deleter's edit contributions, he was verging on being a tendentious editor and arguing with him may become a net disruptive instead. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. If you could ping me (you can use the {{re}} template for that) to that discussion or stick a notice on my talk page with a link to where you've raised it, I'd appreciate it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- P.S, I know it can be frustrating, however back in July I made a similar removal at another BLP. At the time I cited WP:BLPRESTORE in my edit summary, however another editor restored the content without discussion. I then raised it at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard (archive of discussion here), where it was affirmed that per both the WP:BLP and WP:ONUS policies that the editor who wishes to restore content that has been challenged in good faith must seek a consensus at the article's talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Please do not remove comments made on editor talk pages, as done in in these two edits; , , that are non-disruptive per WP:TPO. It is standard practice to notify an editor about a discussion involving content they have added or removed from an article per WP:APPNOTE, and using the {{please see}} template is one such way to do so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's guaranteed to generate a WikiDrama given his tendentious editing, so there's a reason to make it an ad-hoc "third opinion" discussion in the first place.45.136.197.235 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- All forms of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages involve the original editor or editors, unless they are currently subject to a block, topic ban, or page ban. This is necessary as it allows for new editors to query the involved parties as to why they have added or removed content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's guaranteed to generate a WikiDrama given his tendentious editing, so there's a reason to make it an ad-hoc "third opinion" discussion in the first place.45.136.197.235 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)