Talk:Caterina Fake/Archives/2019

Reintroduction of content
I appreciate the re-revert, but I'm confused why the neutral text attributed to reliable sources needs going through. I recognize that the (likely self-written) short bios of the subject that were previously used as sources were not ideal, and I have removed them. There may be a lack of independent sources used, but there is no synthesis of primary sources occurring here.

But, regardless of the sources, Fake being listed on the Time 100 is a large factor in her notability – why would a tag not have simply been placed on the source to question its reliability or on the prose to question its neutrality? Removal of verifiable statements because of the strength of a source or link rot is what caught my attention. Rhinopias (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

, regarding this edit, does the subject being in Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2006 under the category "Builders and Titans" not make her a leader even within Silicon Valley? I made it more specific, but I'm not sure how that improperly summarized recognition she has received. Rhinopias (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)