User talk:Koncorde/Archives/2021/May

Hostile language.

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominion_Voting_Systems&diff=prev&oldid=1019391481, etc: You are not being terribly collegial. Why? Do you use any other accounts or have any COI disclosures? Using "Brutal" and "shoehorn" and "stop"... not cool, totally uncalled for. Could you try making an edit that isn't just an undo? What is confusing? Unnecessary? Why? What context would be necessary? Please reply here or on the talk page.

Edit summaries thus far:

Please stop. 1. what you are inserting is unnecessary and confusing for the first sentence. It reads like it is being shoehorned in, which it is, without any context 2. references aren't required in the lede and there is a source for this in the body already.

Restoring citation. Addressing rv comment. Deleting the citation is destructive. We don't need a gorilla in a china shop... undo Tag: Reverted

Not the right place for that. It is dealt with under the company profile in the main body of the article, or needs to be folded into the lede in a less brutal way.

Private Equity --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

My edits are entirely collegial, my edit summaries explain the issue. Your edits are not very good. There is no COI, I don't have any other accounts, you are just not very good at either writing in an encyclopedic style or presenting information in a way that is even remotely relevant. Yes, you are shoe-horning in content, yes your edits are brutal. You make absolutely no edits that are without some nakedly evident POV push, usually because there is something that you want to present. That you are incapable of even approaching the insertion of information without even a passing attempt at ensuring readability and cohesion is a red flag. You are the "gorilla in a China shop". Koncorde (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

In addition to disagreeing about my edit quality, your comment is outright defamation. "absolutely no edits without ...?" You don't have to look further than my very last edit before the one that put the above comment on your page. I demand you retract. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about your edits to Lithium-ion battery I am talking expressly about Dominion. Sue me. For this edit summary meanwhile (that I know you have reverted), WP:OR is very clear about the use of Primary Sources. Your source in question for instance makes no mention of Bug Bounty, or lack thereof, and effectively requires the reader to infer something that isn't explicitly stated. WP:PRIMARY explains the issues behind this, and this is why it is WP:OR. Particularly what you wrote is easily understood to mean that they do not make any effort to thwart exploitative bugs. However what you linked to said the complete opposite Dominion Voting Systems welcomes feedback from the security research community. If you believe that you have discovered a vulnerability in any of our systems or products, we want to hear from you so that we can investigate. and provide Safe Harbor for those working to detect bugs, and they would be far from the only company that doesn't (Unfortunately BugCrowd.com is not a reliable sources as it is WP:USERGENERATED content). If there was criticism of their bug hunting it would need to come from reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Premier League Hall of Fame, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ITV and Richard Masters.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)