Talk:JD Rossetti

Removing info about Restraining Orders without discussion
If the info is newsworthy and has affected the individual's public perception and political career, I see no reason for it to be removed. If the article went into unwarranted detail or overemphasized, then that would be a problem, but as of now it only briefly references the news coverage in a neutral manner. I don't like that the message when removing it was "Probably done by his ex.This info is not relevant and is personal in nature". If it is reported by reputable sources, it is not personal in nature and accusing other editors of being the person's ex-wife is weird. Either way, we should discuss it before just deleting it.LikeABaller (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I initially removed the sentence because the link was dead, but it appears to be working now. However, it seems very odd to me that you opened this account in Jan and immediately made this edit to this page and then until April didn't make any edits, logged in again and reversed this a second time. It seems to me that there is some kind of conflict of interest and your only reason to have this account is to make edits to this page. The rest of the edits seem to be random so you can hide this fact. I am not going to reverse this myself, but would like at least one other editor to review and comment. My vote would be to remove due to this conflict of interest and that there is only one single source of news about this, which does not make it too reliable. In politics there is always those that have hidden agendas and lot's of fake news! Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just saw this while updating random page for Washington House of Representatives members. OP was blocked for socking. In any case I feel WP:DUE should apply here. Patriot0239 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)