Talk:Thayne McCulloh

NPOV dispute and discussion of drive-by tagging
An editor with a consistent POV agenda has been scrubbing content related to the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, and the hiding of abusive priests on the Gonzaga campus, as well as other media coverage embarrassing to McCulloh. The events need to be put back in this article located in their proper chronological place -- not a garbage dump section at the bottom of the article -- worded cautiously and well cited per WP:BLP. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First, you are being both dishonest and uncivil. You know that the BLP REQUIRES the immediate removal of negative or contentious material that is not properly sourced immediately on sight. Second, you have deliberately mischaracterized the edits I have made to this article. I have done nothing here except clean up bad writing, remove puffer favorable to the subject, correct a severe BLP violation, and generally try to bring this article into compliance with Wikipedia's rules. Go check what I did edit by edit. I engaged in no misconduct whatsoever here and if you continue to make these allegations I will get an admin to intervene and you will risk a block. Third: WWhat you did is drive-by tagging. Here is a quote from the relevant policy “Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.” Saying that there are issues is not enough. You have to provide specific actionable evidence to justify placing these kinds of tags on articles. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fyi this is the diff where I think the OP thinks I whitewashed something. All I did was enforce the rules surrounding BLPs. It is as clear as day and I will not tolerate your dishonesty in this matter. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fine to delete unsourced material. That's why I didn't restore it. But the resulting article now fails to fully cover all relevant subjects. We should not add this negative content back without good sourcing, but until we do, the article needs to be tagged as incomplete and unbalanced. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are changing your story since I called you out on your egregious incivility. You did not characterise the edit in question as being fine in your post above. I hear a lot of quacking here and you are looking more and more like a duck. I can no longer assume that any statement made by you is made in good faith. And you project more than an IMAX screening room. It is very clear that you are emotionally wedded to your favoured content and have a very distinct POV to push.219.73.20.22 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I firmly oppose the frivolous way this article was tagged. This was basically a balanced article already that covers just about all of the encyclopedic parts of this person's biography. It is not, by any means, incomplete and the stated rationale behind these tags is a pretext for POV editing. Please do not re-add these tags until a consensus to do so has been reached. I do see two problems: one, this article could use some more sources and two, it is very poorly written. 2601:140:8500:335B:2414:923E:F80D:3438 (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added a well-sourced summary of the Cardinal Bea House issue. If you find issues with balance and weight, or the wording, please adjust and correct the text without simply deleting content wholesale. Such editing makes writing Wikipedia nearly impossible, as explained in WP:editing policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first sentence contains information that is not in the source that is cited to support it. I think we have an unintentional problem with synthesis which is a prohibited form of original research. I will look at the other sources and the rest of the paragraph and parse them carefully to come to a conclusion on this. I would also like to take back some of the venom I spewed at you. I think this paragraph is very problematic. That said, you clearly tried to step out of your box and do this in good faith. That is a hard thing to do when you feel strongly about something and you are in contention with other people. Kudos for that. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)