31:
414:'s actions, not yours. TarnishedPath has acted absolutely properly. The content has been deleted "on good-faith BLP objections", as provided by TarnishedPath. You then correctly state that the next course of action is "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Not sure what you're complaining about, and I don't see how you can so clearly misunderstand something you are yourself quoting.
356:
First of all, it is certainly an unpleasant surprise to also be accused of editing in a "gaming" way, or of being Will Fowles (this one is quite funny as well as being unpleasant, though.). I think a quick look through my many contributions should make it pretty clear I'm here to improve
Knowledge as
127:
The fact of the arrest was reported widely by media outlets from a police statement. It was a significant event relating to the subject of the article. It is not contentious that the arrest occurred. It is a fact, not a claim to be debated. Removing this fact from the article creates an information
382:
I am new to
Knowledge but competent with this material. That is a good segue to say that as a new user with no interest in this specific article, that this is beyond my interest and capabilities to continue with attempting to edit anything related to this notable content which is repeatedly being
84:
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not
Knowledge's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the
238:
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP
99:
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP
131:
I have now looked at the edit history of the article page and can see that you have been active in removing neutral, factual, notable information on multiple occasions. Are you the subject of this article, or acting on behalf of this person, in order to game
Knowledge?
87:ā. Given that no charges were laid and no conviction obtained it is more than enough to state that there was an accusation of serious assualt and that the police later stated that no charges would be laid. Any further addition of material is gratuitous and a
205:
to try and understand why editors might be editing in a certain way prior to launching into unsubstantiated accusations. It's really not helpful to go about accusing people of having conflicts of interest when you have no evidence. You need to
285:
These are not accusations but statements highlighting chronic misbehavior on this article. This information belongs on the talk page for this article so that it is visibile to other editors and users of wikipedia.
239:
objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with
Knowledge's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first
100:
objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with
Knowledge's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first
146:
Accusing
TarnishedPath of being biased and āgaming Knowledgeā is extremely poor form. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider such a statement. TarnishedPath has been editing appropriately for
183:
you have also been active in removing neutral, factual, notable information on multiple occasions. Are you the subject of this article, or acting on behalf of this person, to game
Knowledge?
368:- is this your first Knowledge account? I find it quite odd that a user with only 3 days of experience would immediately offer an opinion on which method of dispute resolution is superior.
128:
gap. The information that you added to the article, to state that no charges would be pursued does not make sense without the context of a police investigation or an arrest having occurred.
176:, I have no issue with this discussion being on the article's talk page, I agree that is appropriate for the recurring removal of content from this article to be addressed.
339:
263:
and you'll find out how that works out for you. Otherwise I suggest you drop the accusations, because they're not going to get you anywhere.
232:
The evidence is repeated editorial behaviour which goes against
Knowledge's purpose - directed at a specific article. I suggest you consider
440:, I suggest reflect on Grazie's advice. What you've written so far is not likely to lead to any understanding between anyone.
391:
347:
291:
250:
188:
137:
304:
and your obligation to obtain consensus. If you restore the material without obtaining consensus I will take you to
38:
104:
You need to obtain consensus prior to reinserting anything similar to this material again. This is not optional.
78:, you have now edited to re-insert contentious material that has previously been removed twice. Please note that
437:
387:
365:
343:
287:
246:
198:
184:
133:
75:
300:
I'm not going to respond further unless you have anything productive to write. Note: you've been advised of
419:
373:
163:
386:
I would prefer to continue my energy constructively in
Knowledge on my subject matter of interest.
85:
possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment
442:
411:
331:
310:
301:
265:
242:
233:
212:
180:
106:
94:
415:
369:
245:
you are continually removing undisputed facts that are based on extremely reliable sources.
173:
159:
47:
17:
260:
330:
The burden of proof for your reasoning to repeatedly remove notable facts is on you @
207:
202:
155:
151:
88:
79:
361:
335:
305:
457:
423:
395:
377:
351:
325:
295:
280:
254:
227:
192:
167:
141:
121:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
259:
If you believe you have evidence that I am engaged in misbehaviour take it to
150:, and is totally correct in taking this discussion to the talk page. Read
334:. It is also unclear why a veteran editor would be suggesting
25:
93:
Given that the material in question has been removed
70:
Re-insertion of contentious material regarding arrest
8:
360:Secondly, interesting that you mention
98:
83:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
410:Also, this quote directly supports @
342:would be the more appropriate step.
24:
29:
1:
476:
458:03:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
424:05:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
396:05:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
378:05:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
352:04:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
326:04:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
296:04:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
281:04:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
255:04:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
228:03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
193:03:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
168:03:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
142:02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
122:23:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
179:I note that along with @
172:Thanks for your input @
97:applies, which states "
357:a whole in many areas.
42:of past discussions.
438:SpringStreetUpdates
388:SpringStreetUpdates
366:SpringStreetUpdates
344:SpringStreetUpdates
288:SpringStreetUpdates
247:SpringStreetUpdates
199:SpringStreetUpdates
185:SpringStreetUpdates
134:SpringStreetUpdates
76:SpringStreetUpdates
208:assume good faith
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
467:
236:, which states "
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
18:Talk:Will Fowles
475:
474:
470:
469:
468:
466:
465:
464:
201:, perhaps read
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
473:
471:
463:
462:
461:
460:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
384:
358:
177:
129:
103:
92:
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
472:
459:
456:
455:
454:
451:
448:
445:
439:
435:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:TarnishedPath
409:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:TarnishedPath
329:
328:
327:
324:
323:
322:
319:
316:
313:
307:
303:
299:
298:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
282:
279:
278:
277:
274:
271:
268:
262:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:TarnishedPath
240:
235:
231:
230:
229:
226:
225:
224:
221:
218:
215:
209:
204:
200:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:TarnishedPath
178:
175:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
130:
126:
125:
124:
123:
120:
119:
118:
115:
112:
109:
101:
96:
90:
86:
81:
77:
69:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
452:
449:
446:
443:
441:
320:
317:
314:
311:
309:
275:
272:
269:
266:
264:
237:
222:
219:
216:
213:
211:
147:
116:
113:
110:
107:
105:
73:
60:
43:
37:
416:GraziePrego
370:GraziePrego
302:WP:BLPUNDEL
234:WP:BLPUNDEL
174:GraziePrego
160:GraziePrego
154:as well as
95:WP:BLPUNDEL
91:violation.
36:This is an
61:ArchiveĀ 1
383:removed.
148:17 years
82:states "
261:WP:AN/I
39:archive
203:WP:BLP
156:WP:BLP
152:WP:AGF
89:WP:BLP
80:WP:BLP
362:WP:DR
340:WP:DR
338:when
336:WP:AE
306:WP:AE
16:<
453:Path
420:talk
392:talk
374:talk
348:talk
321:Path
292:talk
276:Path
251:talk
241:". @
223:Path
189:talk
164:talk
138:talk
117:Path
450:hed
447:nis
444:Tar
364:, @
318:hed
315:nis
312:Tar
273:hed
270:nis
267:Tar
220:hed
217:nis
214:Tar
114:hed
111:nis
108:Tar
422:)
394:)
376:)
350:)
308:.
294:)
253:)
210:.
191:)
166:)
158:.
140:)
102:".
436:@
418:(
390:(
372:(
346:(
290:(
249:(
197:@
187:(
162:(
136:(
74:@
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.