Talk:Matt Haney

The bias of the moderators on this page is absolutely unbelievable.
The bias of the moderators on this page is absolutely unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8C7E:F59E:5DA4:A3F9:B296:E216 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit warring and tendentious editing are harder to believe. I locked the page to force you to come to the talk page so we can try to find WP:CONSENSUS on what to include, if anything. Mind WP:BLP and WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION before proposing any text additions here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no edit warning, or tendentious editing coming from my side; which to most people would be obvious. Further I would urge you to keep the lock on the page to support your ridiculous bias because as soon as July 25th rolls around it's getting reverted to what is ACTUALLY happening, not just the way a bunch of smug over sensitive progressive adult toddlers stamping their feet are perceiving it to happen. Your intervention in this is nothing more than throwing around weight because of who you are in the "wiki" community. It's absolutely absurd and a complete disgrace. Hope you're proud of yourself, sweetie. If you or anyone else had a problem with it, they were free to edit the and or add/ delete sources, or take it here for discussion, not completely remove the entire section because they are offended. There are MORE than enough sources covering the entire situation, so your "consensus" means nothing. This is the perfect example of what makes Wikipedia trash. Good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8C7E:F59E:7078:B396:3031:E5E2 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring. The content is not neutral. This cannot stand. We need to find a compromise. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The content in question has an obvious POV slant and does not represent its own sources fairly. It is unsuitable for a BLP, or for any Wikipedia article. Frankly, it does a disservice to those who have argued for the murals to stay. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The content stated is factualy responsible. How it is read is up to the reader. Insinuating a slant shows the bias of an individual reader in an attempt to hide factual information. It can definitely be rewritten in a more precise manner, but for the most part I agree with IP. Further, edit warring is being perpetuated by the individuals attacking the content, not by the individual that posted it; which stood for some time before an editor with a clear bias took offence. Both of you should be ashamed of your behaivior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.195.215 (talk) 13:56, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
 * The text that you are edit warring to include is so biased as to be non-factual. It is absolutely unacceptable as you add it, and therefore will continue to be reverted. If you want to see something on this included, you need to engage in discussion here on how it is to be included. Your behavior is not getting you what you want. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I'm the "editor with a clear bias" being referred to, but I'll weigh in anyway. I first came upon this article about a month ago when adding a link from the Honey Mahogany article, as she works as Haney's legislative aide. I then reviewed this article's history and noted the previous reversion (on June 25 by editor ) of the edit regarding the mural. That revert was undone the following day by another IP editor. I removed the wording about the mural (which had been moved to another section in the interim) on July 10. I did so because of the biased tone and unencylopedic nature of the edit, not any personal interest or involvement in the controversy over the mural; I am a San Francisco resident, but am not in Haney's district, and knew nothing about him before my edits to his aide's article.
 * That brings us up to the current edit war. In any case, I agree with that the onus is on the editor(s) desiring inclusion of this content to come up with acceptable wording. Funcrunch (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Matthaneysf.png