Content deleted Content added
Line 104:
::{{echo|R3ap3R}} You used a COI template, so who do you suspect of COI? This article is bluelocked so any editor attempting COI edits would be committing account-suicide. I support NPoV improvements and rewrites, but "that focuses on freedom of speech without censorship" does not appear to be one. It is an opinion that should not be stated as fact to remedy preceived PoV. At least you could use quotation marks per standard practice. Also consider that many sources contradicts Gab's self-promotion of "free speech", which should be another reason not to write it as a fact. I don't want to assume bad faith, but "any issues with my edits go to ArbCom" is really not a friendly statement. ArbCom need not to be bothered with RfC could help. Thanks. [[User:Tsumikiria|Tsumikiria]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiria|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tsumikiria|C]]) 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
::{{echo|R3ap3R}} Quoting from [[Template:COI]]: "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." You haven't started explaing why this article is CoI and PoV. Please, this is not helpful for us to identify issues and improve the article together. Please join discussion. Thank you. [[User:Tsumikiria|Tsumikiria]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiria|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tsumikiria|C]]) 23:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
:::{{echo|Tsumikiria}}Saw this. That guy comes out of nowhere and starts edit warring and wikipedia lawyering. No talk page contributions to explain his edits; nothing. And for what? The chance to insert marketing claims into the very first sentence of the article when that content already exists in the next sentence or two? Doesn't exactly sound like a hill I'd personally die on, but to each their own, I guess. [[User:Fluous|Fluous]] ([[User talk:Fluous|talk]]) 23:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
| |||