Talk:Gamal Aziz

Subject is a notable hotel executive. The bribery arrest just adds to his notability. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits
The restoration of edits here are poor editing. They for example re-introduce the deletion of pertinent facts supported by RS refs (the fact of his arrest, for example, and details of the fake profile reflected in numerous RS refs), the poor descriptions twice ("justice department" rather than "U.S. Justice Department"), the poor English introduced by the editor (changing "He was accused in federal charges" to "Aziz was accused of federal charges"), the specificity (MGM Resorts International vs. MGM Resorts), the extraneous reference to others -- though this is an article about Aziz and not about others, who are covered in the general article about the scandal, the more specific header "Indictment" rather than the less explanatory header "Legal Issues", the switch from the active ("was charged with") to the passive ("included charges of"), etc.

I have pointed this all out to the editor, but he reintroduced these inferior edits. I would urge him to self-revert. If he does not, I would suggest that we have an admin or other experienced editor (such as User:Psantora who has edited this article) review his edits, and the reason for his making edits of this sort - they clearly make the article worse.

I am as a general manner concerned with an editor editing whose edits in large part are backward-sliding, introducing poor English and reflecting what may be a limited understanding.--2604:2000:E010:1100:B8A4:AD7D:D78C:7F47 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry for taking so long to respond to this. It Was not my intention to remove details like "U.S." from in front of "Justice Department" or "international" from "MGM Resorts International". It probably happened when I was adding content to the article or somehow by mistake. I have since fixed this, as well as made other changes to the article. I think we both want to see a great article why don't we collaborate here for I'm sure we can come to a consensus. For starters what do you mean by there should be more active language? Demandchange (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Virtually every one of your edits is a step backward. Above - I detailed why for a host of them. You only responded vis-a-vis one type. The other indicated changes (and most of your other changes of the same type) suffer from the same makes-the-article-worse malady. I suggest you respond to my above points. As to the question you pose, I detailed an example of the problem above.  The article said in the active voice that he "was charged with" ... and you for some inexplicable reason changed this to the passive voice, which is an inferior change ("included charges of"). The entirety of your edits that you have now input twice suffered from the same malady - you were writing more poorly than what preceded your edit, or wantonly deleting facts (his arrest!) that multiple RSs viewed as significant enough to reflect (and RS refs were supplied, supporting those facts). Again - I urge you to revert. 2604:2000:E010:1100:2106:8738:20D1:EE63 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * A step backward? Really? My most recent edits were done in response to your comments. Some of which just don’t make sense. The article now states "U.S. Justice Department" instead of "Justice Department" and "MGM Resorts International" instead of "MGM Resorts" as you requested. I never intended to remove the "U.S." from in front of "Justice Department" nor did I intend to remove the word "International" from "MGM Resorts International" but doing so did not have a substantial effect on the article. Yes, I did change the wording from "He was accused in federal charges" to "Aziz was accused of federal charges”. This should be a no brainer, you are accused “of" charges not "in" charges. You also state, "extraneous reference to others” can you please clarify no one else is mentioned in the article. As for the voice and the tone of the article, I will be working to improve both. Finally, some of what you write is not too clear can you please clarify what you mean by words like "vis-a-vis" and "malady". According to the dictionary, a "malady" is a disease. As for Reverting back? To what? An article that was full of unnecessary details? Why? Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I did not remove anything substantial from the article. Instead of whining and complaining every time I make an edit and telling me to revert my edit. Why not work with me and contribute to the article. Wikipedia not about destroying one another work. Wikipedia is about collaboration and working together so great articles are written through consensus. Demandchange (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)