User talk:Toddst1: Difference between revisions
→User:NaymanNoland: yes |
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →User:NaymanNoland: thank you |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Hi, Toddst1. I am taking a look at your block of this user for edit-warring and I am not convinced it was a good block. It appears to me that this editor was acting in good faith in addressing an issue with BLP implications. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy involving public criticism of Wikipedia by [[Amanda Filipacchi]]. In seeming response to this criticism, User:Qworty has engaged in disputed editing in the past 48 hours involving removal of information from the mainspace articles on Ms. Filipacchi as well as Ms. Filipacchi's three novels, her father, her father's company, as well as her mother, [[Sondra Peterson]]. While I assume good faith with respect to Qworty's motives for these edits, and while some of the individual edits may be within policy, their overall effect has been extremely problematic and I can readily understand why NaymanNoland would have thought it in the best interest of the project to reverse them. in that light, I wonder if this block was necessary or at least whether it should be shortened to "time served." You thoughts would be appreciated. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
Hi, Toddst1. I am taking a look at your block of this user for edit-warring and I am not convinced it was a good block. It appears to me that this editor was acting in good faith in addressing an issue with BLP implications. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy involving public criticism of Wikipedia by [[Amanda Filipacchi]]. In seeming response to this criticism, User:Qworty has engaged in disputed editing in the past 48 hours involving removal of information from the mainspace articles on Ms. Filipacchi as well as Ms. Filipacchi's three novels, her father, her father's company, as well as her mother, [[Sondra Peterson]]. While I assume good faith with respect to Qworty's motives for these edits, and while some of the individual edits may be within policy, their overall effect has been extremely problematic and I can readily understand why NaymanNoland would have thought it in the best interest of the project to reverse them. in that light, I wonder if this block was necessary or at least whether it should be shortened to "time served." You thoughts would be appreciated. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
:You may be right. I was looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sondra_Peterson&diff=552831483&oldid=552830875 this edit] in particular. I'll unblock. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
:You may be right. I was looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sondra_Peterson&diff=552831483&oldid=552830875 this edit] in particular. I'll unblock. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Thank you. Regards, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:53, 30 April 2013
| This is Toddst1's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 days  |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Help
Hello, I wanted to ask you a question, I edit information on certain pages with references is erased repeatedly for no apparent reason or without references, so I wonder if I can explain my case and help me to say objectively user has reason and exercise relevant control. Kodosbs (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Sondra Peterson
This article's talk page could really benefit from some trout and words of caution. Jes saying. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Toddst1. I am taking a look at your block of this user for edit-warring and I am not convinced it was a good block. It appears to me that this editor was acting in good faith in addressing an issue with BLP implications. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy involving public criticism of Wikipedia by Amanda Filipacchi. In seeming response to this criticism, User:Qworty has engaged in disputed editing in the past 48 hours involving removal of information from the mainspace articles on Ms. Filipacchi as well as Ms. Filipacchi's three novels, her father, her father's company, as well as her mother, Sondra Peterson. While I assume good faith with respect to Qworty's motives for these edits, and while some of the individual edits may be within policy, their overall effect has been extremely problematic and I can readily understand why NaymanNoland would have thought it in the best interest of the project to reverse them. in that light, I wonder if this block was necessary or at least whether it should be shortened to "time served." You thoughts would be appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- You may be right. I was looking at this edit in particular. I'll unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)