ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Elephanthunter/Archive2020 1. (BOT) |
update |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*It is meant to replace sections 3 and 3.1. |
*It is meant to replace sections 3 and 3.1. |
||
Feel free to leave any questions or comments at the end of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale#Holy_day,_Article_status_tag this section]. If you agree with the new version, please leave a brief comment stating your approval, to demonstrate consensus and so I can gauge where everyone is on this topic. So far two users have stated their approval, and none have stated disapproval. Thanks, [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 09:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC) |
Feel free to leave any questions or comments at the end of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale#Holy_day,_Article_status_tag this section]. If you agree with the new version, please leave a brief comment stating your approval, to demonstrate consensus and so I can gauge where everyone is on this topic. So far two users have stated their approval, and none have stated disapproval. Thanks, [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 09:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
Hi {{ping|Elephanthunter}} Change of plans, if you're still inclined to take part: the discussion has moved [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale/Major_edits here] if you would like to weigh in and possibly state agreement with the proposed edits. Comments are after every proposed section. The discussion fortunately seems to have gotten a second wind with the help of another admin and other users, so perhaps this round will have conclusive results. Thanks, [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 09:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:00, 29 August 2020
Rebecca Zahau
Before reverting please provide actual reliable sources that dispute the coroner's report or Sheriff that have actual standing to make such a judgement. Zahau's family, by accepting the settlement, have vacated any decision against Shacknai's brother. Instituting any legal standing other than the final outcome of the legal process is in violation of an actual living person by suggesting any continued guilt. The only source I can find that is vaguely reliable is sourced solely to the lawyer for Zahau's family and is his opinion - unsupported by any other source. He is a minority legal opinion in an unsuccessful case vacated by a judge after settlement. I have outlined and detailed the sources. Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Koncorde: It appears as though you are adding disputed content to a WP:BLP. This should probably be discussed on the talk page for the relevant article instead of my page. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, you are both adding unsupported legal assertions without any sources to support and also making serious BLP changes that directly impact upon an actual living person across multiple articles.
- I explained why you were wrong. You have reverted with no evidence to support your position, and you are continuing to do so. Article talk page, or here, doesn't matter. Koncorde (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Koncorde: There aren't any relevant editors watching my user talk page. I want input from other editors familiar with the topic. I'd appreciate if you discussed this further on the appropriate talk page. Normally this would just be a suggestion per WP:BRD, but as you are adding disputed information to a BLP, it's Wikipedia policy. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
JSB edit - Politics section sandbox
Hi Elephanthunter, I posted a message for you in the "Holy day, Article status tag" section some days ago, but you may have missed it, possibly due to how cluttered the page has become, which would be understandable. I will reproduce it here:
(June 8 message) do you have any opinion on the edit in the Sandbox? It's been up for two weeks and I'll add it after the lock ends if we have consensus, as no one has voiced any concerns with it yet.
To give you a brief update:
- The version of the Politics section edit has now been up for over three weeks.
- GSS has continued to not contribute to any discussion regarding this edit, so there have been no objections so far. I think we've been more than patient, and our fortuitous prior timing seems to have ensured that the AISSF section stayed up.
- It is meant to replace sections 3 and 3.1.
Feel free to leave any questions or comments at the end of this section. If you agree with the new version, please leave a brief comment stating your approval, to demonstrate consensus and so I can gauge where everyone is on this topic. So far two users have stated their approval, and none have stated disapproval. Thanks, Sapedder (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Elephanthunter: Change of plans, if you're still inclined to take part: the discussion has moved here if you would like to weigh in and possibly state agreement with the proposed edits. Comments are after every proposed section. The discussion fortunately seems to have gotten a second wind with the help of another admin and other users, so perhaps this round will have conclusive results. Thanks, Sapedder (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)