This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ArielGold(talk | contribs) at 01:23, 9 August 2019(→McCarthy: Topic is irrelevant - I don't think you realize what I actually did - edited pending changes to remove biased and inappropriate opinions to the page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:23, 9 August 2019 by ArielGold(talk | contribs)(→McCarthy: Topic is irrelevant - I don't think you realize what I actually did - edited pending changes to remove biased and inappropriate opinions to the page.)
I know (drumroll......) I put a space in it!!! But seriously, I have used my name as one word since I made my first email address in 1994 (in the days before spaces etc.). When I joined wikipedia in 2006 I didn't give it any thought really until much later when someone asked what my real name was....sigh Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you don't edit a lot around antivax articles. First, the "I'm pro safe vaccines" line is a classic antivaxer tactic: the "safe" is a mythical safety that can't be achieved - she wants 100% safe vaccines but doesn't accept that the diseases vaccines prevent are killers. Second, the "vulnerable children" bit is clear in context as a claim that vaccine scause autism in *some* children, just presumabaly not any of the populations studied by scientists and found not to have any link. Vaccines do ont cause autism. There is no evidence of a link, causal or otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I am familiar with a topic or not had no bearing on anything - does a quote that is attributed to the subject of a BLP article have a reliable source to confirm the person said it or not? That's what matters. I did not state any opinion either way, nor did I say anyone else did - I simply fixed issues introduced by a new editor who clearly had strong opinions (that did not belong on Ms. McCarthy's page to begin with) and wished to introduce them into the living person article. It is also why I did not include the 'vulnerable' qualifier - it is not neutral, or unbaised a term. I think perhaps you did not look at the edits from the person who was introducing the issues; all I did is add a PBS reference he wished added, and clarify what he continued to try to introduce into the article repeatedly - the terminology she stated in two interviews that she preferred - attributing it to her in quotations. I did so in an unbiased, sourced way, moved the other source that confirms it up to that line, and removed a link to someone's random Facebook page that should not have been there in the first place (and was re-introduced by you reverting my fix.) Please take another look at the actualdiffs before assuming I was not fixing errors introduced by others. Cheers Ariel♥Gold01:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
