| Revision as of 20:17, 2 August 2017 editGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits informationectomy | Revision as of 16:31, 5 August 2017 edit undoCommotioCerebri (talk | contribs)55 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| After waiting a reasonable period of time, if no one can defend this informationectomy, I'll restore the passage. ] (]) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC) | After waiting a reasonable period of time, if no one can defend this informationectomy, I'll restore the passage. ] (]) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :First off the personal attacks need to stop, comment on the article not the editor. Secondly, you have included a ton of non-relevant informatino such as the Farley article. This reference is an opinion article, it is right in the URL and title (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/could-the-toronto-crane-climber-use-thrill-seeking-as-a-tool-for-social-good/article34893962/). Please review MEDRS BEFORE including medical information. As consensus is required to include the information in question as per WP:BOLD please provide a rationale to your references on this. Simple reverting because you don't agree isn't acceptable. ] (]) 16:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:31, 5 August 2017
In this edit an inexperienced editor, one with only a dozen or so edits, excised a paragraph about a well reported crane climbing incident, with the edit summary "I have removed the bit about MArisa and the article by FARLEY. As the Globe and Mail piece is an oped it would be considered a primary source and wouldn't be acceptable per Misplaced Pages:MEDRS."
I question whether any of the references they excised should be considered a primary source. An article by daredevel Marisa Lazo, or rescue fire captain Rob Wonfors, would be a primary source. A plain ordinary newspaper article is not a primary source.
Nor do I agree that the article in the Globe and Mail is an "op-ed", or otherwise barred from use here.
After waiting a reasonable period of time, if no one can defend this informationectomy, I'll restore the passage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- First off the personal attacks need to stop, comment on the article not the editor. Secondly, you have included a ton of non-relevant informatino such as the Farley article. This reference is an opinion article, it is right in the URL and title (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/could-the-toronto-crane-climber-use-thrill-seeking-as-a-tool-for-social-good/article34893962/). Please review MEDRS BEFORE including medical information. As consensus is required to include the information in question as per WP:BOLD please provide a rationale to your references on this. Simple reverting because you don't agree isn't acceptable. CommotioCerebri (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)