Talk:Mona Davids

Major construction and thoughts on it
This article about Davids is currently fairly negative, but her achievements and coverage in the media demonstrate notability and there is a wealth of information out there. In an effort to remain neutral I might end up removing more than is necessary, though I feel this is better since it will force editors to come up with good sources. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there was some confusion with the sourcing after the user MonaDavids inserted a few lines in between the sourced paragraphs - they are a new editor, and therefore probably are not too familiar with WP conventions on in line citations etc. I've restored the sourced content, and tried to find some sources for the content added by MonaDavids (I'll keep looking).  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Purposely negative edits on education advocate
The wiki page set up by user "Adventurous Squirrel" is unfairly negative of education advocate Ms. Davids and a clear attempt to smear and attack her efforts to improve education for students in NYC's public school system.

On 17 February 2015, editor "Primefac" made edits and stated "This article about Davids is currently fairly negative, but her achievements and coverage in the media demonstrate notability and there is a wealth of information out there. In an effort to remain neutral I might end up removing more than is necessary, though I feel this is better since it will force editors to come up with good sources."

The user "Adventurous Squirrel" has a personal issue with Ms. Davids and is a teacher who opposes Ms. Davids' efforts to improve education for NYC students. It unfortunate that Wikipedia is being used to attack a parent that cares about kids futures.

The edited page of Primefac was fair, non-biased and should be restored. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangea4091 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not my intent to be unfairly negative here at all - if there are any concerns you have with specific points, I would be happy to discuss it with you and any other uninvolved editors to arrive at some WP:consensus about what should be presented and how. That said, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove large swaths of sourced contributions.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored the content, because removing editor Pangea4091 hasn't given any specific concerns about any particular points. Please discuss any mistakes you think were made or points of contention you have here, so we can work out how to correct any if they exist.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have also re-restored the content, as no decent reason for the removal has been given- accusing another user of being biased is not a good reason, is not assuming good faith and also fails under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless a proper reason is given and consensus agrees, the text should not be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)