User:Mcfnord/sandbox2

This is the user sandbox of Mcfnord. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Badgering Revert Log

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." - BullRangifer

We all come here to collaborate. It's so much fun.

A revert is a good tool for a change that has no merit.

If a change has, perhaps 70% merit, it may be smarter to just build on the change.

A civil collaborator might trim away details that they find troubling or unclear, leaving the 70% that adds valuable clarity or depth to this information. A civil collaborator might even need to perform additional research to examine their own ambiguity surrounding a change.

This log describes reverts to this topic that seem to badger other editors using the revert feature.

Link We've already been over this. Stop edit warring over it. - Edit wars are built on reverts, and she reverts. I changed the title on a substantialled changed section. Also, this comment assumes bad faith. This editor changed the title to "trial" once, until she finally acknowledged there was no trial. Classic. So, is changing this title some nefarious act? There's BRD. Sounds like a dream! [[1]] (And, no, the clarification of the two "in the car" aspects doesn't called for retitling the section "Relationship, crime, and media attention. "What relationship?" is what readers will wonder. "Crime" gets the point across just fine since the lead is clear that she committed a crime. And "media attention" is more so that "In popular culture" thing.) - She thinks having 125 news reporters at your sentencing is "in popular culture" like when you are referenced on a TV show. The facts in this section include a crush of unusually high-profile media attention. I don't think she understands what tabloid news sensationalism is. She never has shown an understanding of it, yet we're trying to cover it where it appears right here in this article. She doesn't want the fact of tabloid news in the title of the topic about MKL, at the point where she essentially "goes viral" 90's style. I've learned this needs to be funny, not frustrating. Now, there is [history here]. There's a bias against describing the relationship as, yeah, a relationship, that was for some time 'illicit' but nonetheless went on like 3 decades. Crime occurred for, what, two years of those 30? The bias against describing a tabloid sensation as "media attention" is not something I've encountered in this discussion. And while it's hilarious to suggest otherwise, it's not libel to omit it, it's just poor encyclopedia authorship.

Title history:

Date	New title	Editor	Notes
xx/xx/xx	Crime, trial and conviction	???	There was no trial.
xx/xx/xx	Crime and consequences	mcfnord	Tabloid exposure was a consequence.
xx/xx/xx	Crime, trial and conviction	f22	There was no trial.
xx/xx/xx	Crime, ruling, and sentence	f22	Noticed there was no trial? But there were two sentences.
xx/xx/xx	Relationship, crime, and media attention	mcfnord	Lots of media attention mentioned in this section.

Crime, trial and conviction for a long time. I changed it to Crime and consequences once, because, well, THERE WAS NO TRIAL, and there were many consequences beyond the conviction. But that got [[2]] back to Crime, trial and conviction even though no trial occurred. Ha ha what? Somewhere I told her there was no trial, so she shoots for Crime, ruling, and sentence. There was two counts, so two crimes. There wasn't a ruling! Show me one ruling. There was a plea! And the sentence, yes, there was a sentence, but really there were two. Meanwhile there were international headlines, and "throngs" of reporters. TITLES AREN'T A PLACE FOR SUCH CONTEXT, APPARENTLY. Hilarious.

NPOV-primary sources cast doubt on student status

Under Wikipedia BLP guidelines, reasonable doubt is adequate for removal of this claim until conclusive resolution. The opposite--that existing content stays up until a change is proved--is not consistent with BLP's writing needs about serious accusations. This false or soundly questionable claim impacts two living people, including one who was then a minor no older than 13.