User talk:Ew3234/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
April 2021
Please do not take MH as unbiased. Disruptive editors have now locked the page for Brian Gallagher from further editing with quoted opinions and biased articles referenced. My previous edits were to remove opinion and biased sources, while the linked AP article still contained all relevant background information. Param3ter2 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Param3ter2, your last edit did not remove "opinions." You removed details of the allegations that are well cited using reliable sources. This is disruptive. Can you point me to the Wikipedia policy supports your actions? --Ew3234 (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I would not say that HuffPost is a reliable source; it's a blog with a heavy slant. The quotation specifically is undoubtably opinion. Param3ter2 (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Param3ter2, it is a reliable source. The Wikipedia consensus is that Huffpost non-policial coverage is reliable. Please see WP:HUFFPOST for the official word on this. Please DO NOT remove Huffpost citations with the assumption that they are biased. Ew3234 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ew3234, this story was often filed under their political header. Param3ter2 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I missed that. I will find an alternative citition. Ew3234 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ew3234, thank you. The fact that HuffPost originated this story and then later filed it under Politics is what called it into question for me. The reporting may have begun as neutral and become political over time. Param3ter2 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I should say that there is no consensus on Huffpost Politics. It would be wrong to blacketly call it an unreliable source (see WP:RSP). The article in question doesn't appear to be political in nature. It's not favorable to Gallagher but it doesn't make it unreliable. What's your relationship to Brian Gallagher? You've only edited his page? Ew3234 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- No relationship. I have only edited this page, because I noticed that the edits made after the reporting were not at all neutral in nature, so much so that they seemed likely to be coming directly from the individuals involved. I reacted to your edits because it seemed that this may be referencing you and you were therefore getting your information from and entirely opinion-based source. Is that the case? Param3ter2 (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Param3ter2, please review my edit history. You can see that I rewrote the entire article on United Way (I have 89% authorship on it). I have some subject matter expertise here and that's why I edited this article. I'm not invovled in this personally and I'm not getting information from that source you mentioned (also, did you send the right link? It doesn't look related United Way or Gallagher. It looks like its about moving to Denmark but I didn't actaully listen to the episode). All the text I added was backed up by legit sources. I removed the Huffpost source (even though there's no consensus on reliablity of it) and I replaced it with another source. Ew3234 (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I sent the correct link. I did want to make sure that you weren't making edits in response to a opinion podcast. I left some of your most recent edits, but removed some that seemed to pertain more to the organization's response; perhaps they belong on the United Way Worldwide page as the harassment allegations themselves were against other employees. Param3ter2 (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I see. I don't listen to that podcast. All my edits are given citations to the places where they are reported, not from opinion peices. They should be covered here because Gallagher is involved and even stepped down from his job as a result. Per the AP News "...fired by Gallagher as retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by another executive". It could also be covered in the United Way article as well. Ew3234 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the clarification. Where you chose to add the ellipsis there is interesting. Here is the rest of the sentence: "Lisa Bowman, who was executive vice president and chief marketing officer at United Way Worldwide until she said she was fired by Gallagher as retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by another executive, said the investigation was “not fair, balanced or thorough” because the investigators did not talk with any of the women involved." AP reports it as something said by a source, not as their own assertion. Param3ter2 (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I see. I don't listen to that podcast. All my edits are given citations to the places where they are reported, not from opinion peices. They should be covered here because Gallagher is involved and even stepped down from his job as a result. Per the AP News "...fired by Gallagher as retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by another executive". It could also be covered in the United Way article as well. Ew3234 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I sent the correct link. I did want to make sure that you weren't making edits in response to a opinion podcast. I left some of your most recent edits, but removed some that seemed to pertain more to the organization's response; perhaps they belong on the United Way Worldwide page as the harassment allegations themselves were against other employees. Param3ter2 (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Param3ter2, please review my edit history. You can see that I rewrote the entire article on United Way (I have 89% authorship on it). I have some subject matter expertise here and that's why I edited this article. I'm not invovled in this personally and I'm not getting information from that source you mentioned (also, did you send the right link? It doesn't look related United Way or Gallagher. It looks like its about moving to Denmark but I didn't actaully listen to the episode). All the text I added was backed up by legit sources. I removed the Huffpost source (even though there's no consensus on reliablity of it) and I replaced it with another source. Ew3234 (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- No relationship. I have only edited this page, because I noticed that the edits made after the reporting were not at all neutral in nature, so much so that they seemed likely to be coming directly from the individuals involved. I reacted to your edits because it seemed that this may be referencing you and you were therefore getting your information from and entirely opinion-based source. Is that the case? Param3ter2 (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I should say that there is no consensus on Huffpost Politics. It would be wrong to blacketly call it an unreliable source (see WP:RSP). The article in question doesn't appear to be political in nature. It's not favorable to Gallagher but it doesn't make it unreliable. What's your relationship to Brian Gallagher? You've only edited his page? Ew3234 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ew3234, thank you. The fact that HuffPost originated this story and then later filed it under Politics is what called it into question for me. The reporting may have begun as neutral and become political over time. Param3ter2 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I missed that. I will find an alternative citition. Ew3234 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ew3234, this story was often filed under their political header. Param3ter2 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Param3ter2, it is a reliable source. The Wikipedia consensus is that Huffpost non-policial coverage is reliable. Please see WP:HUFFPOST for the official word on this. Please DO NOT remove Huffpost citations with the assumption that they are biased. Ew3234 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brian Gallagher. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I see that you continue to add superfluous quotations. Please use the talk page if you'd like to discuss further but please stop trying to edit this content without seeking consensus. Param3ter2 (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Param3ter2, As I've said before, please use the Gallagher talk page to discuss your concerns and build consensus for the edits you'd like to make. Happy to discuss in the appropriate channels. Ew3234 (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- While that does make sense, why then did you initially open the discussion on my personal talk page? Did you do the same with all editors of the page as there have been many disruptive editors either deleting all citations or adding unverified information. It seems like there would have been a better record had that all been discussed on the article's talk page. Param3ter2 (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Danish bacon
You can thank User talk:Drmies/Archive 133#Articles for creation and User talk:Drmies#Youth cred. User talk:Drmies#Furniture, eh! is Canadian bacon, though. ☺ In Special:Diff/1013993409 Drmies said nothing about funiture manufacturers. Uncle G (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)