|
I would very much appreciate the reasons [[User talk:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]], and [[User talk:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]] reverted Choudary. The edits I included provided an accurate description of Choudary's extremism, and the banned terrorist linked organizations/events he was either involved in as a founder or leader. The revert omits any direct mention of him as an extremist, or that he has gained world-wide recognition because of it. As editors, it is our job to inform, not misinform by omission, and it is certainly not our job to rewrite history, or portray someone as something they are not by twinkle toeing around the truth. The comments on the reverts appear more as a personal critique of me based on a differing POV instead of it being a written collaboration by volunteer editors working together to improve a Wiki entry.<br> |
|
I would very much appreciate the reasons [[User talk:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]], and [[User talk:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]] reverted Choudary. The edits I included provided an accurate description of Choudary's extremism, and the banned terrorist linked organizations/events he was either involved in as a founder or leader. The revert omits any direct mention of him as an extremist, or that he has gained world-wide recognition because of it. As editors, it is our job to inform, not misinform by omission, and it is certainly not our job to rewrite history, or portray someone as something they are not by twinkle toeing around the truth. The comments on the reverts appear more as a personal critique of me based on a differing POV instead of it being a written collaboration by volunteer editors working together to improve a Wiki entry.<br> |
|
Parrot of Doom's comment <i>"(this is hardly an improvement)"</i> is hardly an acceptable reason for deleting someone's work, especially when the revert is poorly written, lacks proper sentence structure, and falls short of being a comprehensive BLP suitable for entry in an online encyclopedic resource such as Wikipedia. Bencherlite's comment <i>"Badly written/sourced/formatted and POV. No thank you",</i> comes across as a personal critique, and POV. While on the subject of POV, I'll reference another comment made by Bencherlite a few days ago in response to my question about [[Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Islamophobia_vs_Terrorism_Projects|Islamophobia vs Terrorism Projects]] on the ANI. To be quite frank, I was concerned that it showed prejudice for followers of Islam to a level unbecoming for an unbiased editor. I hope that isn't the case, but it certainly appears to be based on what's happening now. I am fully aware there are distinct differences, and that not all Muslims are radical or extremists. I have always maintained a NPOV in all of my writings. As a magazine publisher and professional writer for over 35 years, I was rarely if ever criticized for turning in work that was "badly written/sourced/formatted", or reflected a bias to one group or person over another. This isn't my first rodeo. I've been a Wiki editor since 2011, so please, let's cut to the chase, and save ourselves some time. Please just tell me what parts you considered "badly written", or that reflected a POV. Tell me what parts you considered badly formatted, because I followed the formatting that was consistent with the bio. If you think the few edits I made were badly formatted, then the whole bio needs to be rewritten. I focused only on the lead-in, and had plans to work on improving sentence structure for the rest of the article at a later date. I don't see anything in my edits to justify a complete revert. If it's about POV, then we need to take this straight to the ANI, and stop wasting time. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] ([[User talk:Atsme|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 06:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Parrot of Doom's comment <i>"(this is hardly an improvement)"</i> is hardly an acceptable reason for deleting someone's work, especially when the revert is poorly written, lacks proper sentence structure, and falls short of being a comprehensive BLP suitable for entry in an online encyclopedic resource such as Wikipedia. Bencherlite's comment <i>"Badly written/sourced/formatted and POV. No thank you",</i> comes across as a personal critique, and POV. While on the subject of POV, I'll reference another comment made by Bencherlite a few days ago in response to my question about [[Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Islamophobia_vs_Terrorism_Projects|Islamophobia vs Terrorism Projects]] on the ANI. To be quite frank, I was concerned that it showed prejudice for followers of Islam to a level unbecoming for an unbiased editor. I hope that isn't the case, but it certainly appears to be based on what's happening now. I am fully aware there are distinct differences, and that not all Muslims are radical or extremists. I have always maintained a NPOV in all of my writings. As a magazine publisher and professional writer for over 35 years, I was rarely if ever criticized for turning in work that was "badly written/sourced/formatted", or reflected a bias to one group or person over another. This isn't my first rodeo. I've been a Wiki editor since 2011, so please, let's cut to the chase, and save ourselves some time. Please just tell me what parts you considered "badly written", or that reflected a POV. Tell me what parts you considered badly formatted, because I followed the formatting that was consistent with the bio. If you think the few edits I made were badly formatted, then the whole bio needs to be rewritten. I focused only on the lead-in, and had plans to work on improving sentence structure for the rest of the article at a later date. I don't see anything in my edits to justify a complete revert. If it's about POV, then we need to take this straight to the ANI, and stop wasting time. --[[User:Atsme|Atsme]] ([[User talk:Atsme|talk]]) 06:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC) |
