Talk:Mark H. Buzby

Comment
I missed this at the time.

Another contributor cut the amount of text in the article in half, in the process removing three perfectly valid WP:RS. They justified this large excision with the edit summary: "Edited, violation of Coatrack and biography requirements. Neutrality is not even attempted, and it casts the subject in a negative light.."

First, one can't "violate" Coatrack, as it is only an essay, not a policy... And, the essay doesn't recommend this kind of radical excision.

Second, I think that an excision of 4K worth of material, half an article, requires more explanation than will fit in an edit summary -- I am disappointed to see no attempt to add a fuller explanation on the talk page.

Third, I am disturbed that no attempt was made to preserve the WP:RS. WP:RS can't violate WP:NPOV, without regard to whatever concern the exciser may have had about how those WP:RS were quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

If no explanation is forthcoming, after a reasonable period of time, I will restore some or all of this excised material, after making a good faith attempt to guess at and address whatever unnamed concerns prompted the excision in the first place.

Cheers! User:Geo Swan (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)