Talk:Mark Dooley

Revision and Improvement
Rather than reverting the work of others, User:AlexandraSl, could you instead use this space to directly address the claims made by User:Drmies in his recent edits, and describe how they should be fixed? There seem to be different perspectives here. Altenmaeren (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I mean, this article, and I'm sorry to say it, was very not good. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm puzzled. How can anyone with some competence remove the tags, for instance--the article is lacking reliable sources to the point where it's absure. Lengthy summaries/evaluations of the books, with effusive praise, that's promotional--at the very least it's not neutral. In what universe is a statement like "he is a familiar voice on the Irish radio and a popular columnist" neutral? Even if verified it wouldn't be allowed in a Wikipedia BLP, and certainly not in the lead. In the meantime I've warned the editor about their edit warring; they're already in blockable territory (for edit warring, disruption, non-neutral editing). Drmies (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am quite aggrieved by the tone and the contents of these exchanges. I will make a scaled-down version of the page, one which merely contains biographical and bibliographical information. What has been done to it misrepresents the career of the philosopher, laying the focus on just one cause. User:AlexandraSl — Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)