| Revision as of 03:54, 23 October 2022 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Popular Front of India/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit |
Revision as of 03:53, 24 October 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Popular Front of India/Archive 2) (botNext edit → |
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
==Recent removals== |
|
|
I have undone the recent removals by Venkat TL given the large number of objections raised in above sections. It is not justifiable to remove sourced content only because it is critical of PFI. Removing allegations because they haven't ended up in conviction shouldn't be done unless the information is itself incorrect or it comes from improper source but we are not seeing that here. <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>> ].]</span> 11:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@] You are not allowed to restore ] violations and violations of ]. The article was a mess and I wonder how much of this was added by you. If you restore or edit war over this, I will report this. ] (]) 11:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You need to describe which "BLP" violation happened. The version which I restored has been stable for months before you started to remove content that happened to be critical of this organization. <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>> ].]</span> 11:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] naming of multiple individuals accused of crime without convictions. ] (]) 11:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Can you cite the specific examples? If no arrest happened then we can remove those particular names. Conviction is not necessary as long as the text is clearly stating it as mere allegation. <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>> ].]</span> 11:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@] So you are telling me that you restored everything without even checking if the content that you have restored agrees with the policies of Misplaced Pages or not? and want me to point them out for you? I believe this grossly irresponsible behavior. Please look at my edit summaries, in page history, for example look at ], ], ] Also see ] that says "''The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.''". If you believe that I had wrongly removed something that you believe was appropriate for the article. Please let me know. Do not do blanket reverts like you did here ]. ] (]) 12:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::], just an illuminating comment: your construction of the said policy leaves a lot to be desired. These are essentially your edits that have come under the purview of editorial dispute and you should be the first one to make efforts to comply with ] in order to facilitate consensus building...rather than engender and partake in an edit war. ] (]) 12:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Diffs are the edits where I have removed content that clearly violates the policy. And Extorc added them in ]. Are you saying They are in compliance with policy? All of them? which? Please follow the Policy about, '''] and ]'''. No discussion is needed to remove them. But consensus is needed to restore them. ] (]) 12:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::There is no BLP violation. No I didn't "restored everything without even checking", but because the content existed for months and was vetted by not only me but also {{U|Kautilya3}}. |
|
|
::::::::] was a bad removal because the content talked about ED booking PFI for money-laundering and finding 'financial links' between PFI and anti-CAA protests. ] was even worse and your explanation read like ] because you haven't provided a source which could prove the sting operation to be false. ] is just the same because the content is treating the those allegations as only allegations and talking about charges and arrests. It is completely fine. |
|
|
::::::::You are not allowed to reinstate your problematic edits until you have gained consensus. You made the mass removal and your edits were reverted. Now you are supposed to gain consensus instead of edit warring. That said, you are not in the position to cite ] especially when your explanations are without any basis. <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>> ].]</span> 13:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::The article is obviously in a very poor state, most of it is just an indiscriminate collection of allegations picked out of statements from politicians, police, etc with whatever source one could find. Can you not edit war and keep restoring it? The article needs to summarise the allegations rather than be a page about allegations that it is at present. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 14:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{U|Akshaypatill}}, {{U|Vsa111}}, {{U|Extorc}}, {{U|DogeChungus}}, {{U|Kautilya3}}, {{u|ChandlerMinh}}, {{u|Rejoy2003}}, {{u|Phoenix14061990}}, {{noping|Venkat TL}}, removed a lot of sentences on 23rd September, please restore what you feel was not original research.-] (]) 14:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::] You really need to double check before you ping people unnecessarily. I never edited on 23rd September. The day the organisation was banned that's on 28 September is when I had contributed. And it was more of addition and less of deletion. Added to this, I deleted only the common wikilinks and general fixes. No statement or anything important related were deleted. ] 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{u|Rejoy2003}}, I think you misunderstood. I merely requested you and some others to restore what {{noping|Venkat TL}} removed on 23 September. {{U|Extorc}}, has mentioned what was removed (see above).-] (]) 16:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
