Portal talk:Current events/2015 August 27

Resolution of wording of 8/27/15 event, NLRB decision

 * Update: resolved RaqiwasSushi (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that you've given up? I don't want the continuous updating nature of Portal:Current Events to start to set a precedent of it being extra vulnerable to tendentious editing because that would be especially terrible. Do we have a recourse going forward if there's never any discussion from 68.231.26.111 unless an edit is made? Like a Request for Comment? I could be the one to set it up if your energy is running low, I passionately want to defend Wikipedia from things being pushed through purely through persistence, even without malice. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

-- @68.231.26.111 about 10:15 am EDT

ISSUE REMAINING

My post on your talk page and repeated in my help desk request discusses why the opening, "The Obama Administration, through its appointment of a majority of board members ..." is unnecessary -- previous administrations have done the same thing. Singling out the White House is not material to the NLRB decision; having 3 democrats and 2 republicans on this independent agency is.

HELP DESK

My post on the help desk was out of frustration. Except for a few short remarks, my changes keep getting undone without comment. Those short remarks generally cite me for bias. Bias it what my changes were attempting to remove. I call that an impasse.

The third party in this, 50.89.166.63, stated on your talk page on the 29th, "... I am extremely disappointed in that despite all my attempts to discuss the issue, you had no interest in discussing it at all." No longer true with the Help Desk help this morning.

Before I finalized the 00:07, 3 September 2015‎ edit, I posted a lot of information about the change on your talk page. History shows nine minutes later, my changes were again undone by you without comment. There were no comments to the post on your talk page. About three hours later, I undid the undo and asked you to read this post.

At this point, all I could foresee were reversals from my language to your language, repeat, ad infinitum. Something had to change. Not knowing the proper method/forum to resolve this, I posted a request on the help desk page with a brief description of the problem. Attempted to briefly describe what had been happening and included the documentation from my post on your talk page.

I'm at a loss what bad names you were called or how I defamed you? To the extent you feel harmed, I am sorry. That was not my intent. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2015 (: UTC)

=
=============


 * No response from 68.231.26.111, page with that IP no longer on Wikipedia. Seems this is over. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Impasse. Each of us regards the other's content as biased, partisan, political, etc. I have decided to not edit. ... I think removing the phrase, "through its appointment of a majority of board members," would improve objectivity. As it is now, "Democratic-controlled," is redundant. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)