This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

New Zealand High‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Emotive and perjorative language?

The sentence "inefficient, with lazy balance sheets, complacent" contains wording that is emotive and pejorative language for describing a situation where the companies described were apparently run with goals other than, or in addition to, maximizing return to shareholders. Rather than being useful source material, the language appears to be evidence that the cited source is not a neutral party suitable as a source for wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E003:1098:2D00:0:0:0:2 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should pedophiles be described as pedophiles?

@PEPSI697- I understand that you chose to remove mention that the pedophile Ronald Alfred Brierley, who reliable sources have described as a pedophile with thousands of victims, as a pedophile as 'vandalism'.

Obviously, I appreciate that this is an accusation that is sometimes made against non-pedophiles, and obviously should not be made against such, and that such claims should be removed.

I would appreciate it if you could review said removal, and, should you stand by opposing describing a pedophile as a pedophile, elaborate on your reasoning in light of Wikipedia policy. URabinowitz (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@URabinowitz: You're welcome! Also, thank you very much for explaining what was the matter on the article's talk page, I extremely appreciate it! I also thanked your edit here as a reward for taking this issue to the talk page. Also thank you very much for apologising too! I did see your topic you added on my talk page but was removed by another user as per WP:NPA.

I revert or patrol edits to make sure they are all good faith and less bad faith by reverting vandalism or bad faith edits using some filters on the "Recent changes" category log.

I did also see the message you left on @Jdcomix's talk page, however, lots of contributors on Wikipedia (especially autistic editors) can be stressed or unsure about why their edits are reverted and may lose their cool sometimes. Regarding on this, I have autism too, just like you do and have stressed feelings of sensitivity as well.

I recommend reading Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors, especially section here as it's really helpful for editors that have autism.

Happy editing and do good with editing Wikipedia too! PEPSI697 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]