Talk:Thomas Marcelle

Problematic editing behavior
I recently came upon this article. When I first saw the article, it looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Marcelle&diff=prev&oldid=905363839. The article did not include a single secondary source. I made a series of substantial edits that did the following:


 * Removed a source that had nothing to do with the topic of the article;
 * Added eight (8) reliable sources;
 * Removed puffery;
 * Reorganized the article; and
 * Added new information on Marcelle's legal career, his previous federal judicial nomination, the controversy surrounding his 2012 appointment as Albany County Attorney, and his family background.

The article now looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Marcelle&diff=908649400&oldid=908649238. I maintain that this is a substantial improvement.

Snickers2686, who created the article, used Rollback to revert all 26 edits that I made. No reason for the edit was offered in the edit summary or on this talk page. I have restored my edits and would request that Snickers2686 kindly refrain from reverting them without justification. SunCrow (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I've asked you twice, via your talk page why you did a complete re-write and still haven't received an answer. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Snickers2686, I think my post above answered your question. However, I will try again. I rewrote the article because it:


 * Did not contain a single secondary source;
 * Was missing relevant information on Marcelle's legal career, his previous federal judicial nomination, the controversy surrounding his 2012 appointment as Albany County Attorney, and his family background;
 * Cited a source that had no information on Marcelle;
 * Contained puffery; and
 * Was not well-organized.


 * Now that I have answered your question, I would again ask that you kindly undo your reversion of the 26 edits I made, which added eight (8) reliable sources and solved all of the problems noted above. There was no basis for you to revert those edits. You might want to take a look at WP:OWN as well. SunCrow (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think SunCrow's edits were largely an improvement and shouldn't have been mass reverted. If there are individual edits you disagree with, those can be handled one by one, but as a whole it looks to me like better sources were added, some WP:NPOV wording was removed, and the article has better flow now. Marquardtika (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Snickers2686 has doubled down by re-reverting all of my edits--again with no reason given. Snickers2686, I would prefer not to have to seek administrative involvement in this situation. However, if you continue with the tendentious editing, I will. SunCrow (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How were my edits "non-constructive"? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Snickers2686, I'm not answering any questions from you until you respond to my question about why you reversed 26 of my edits in one fell swoop, removing eight reliable sources in the process. Then you did it a second time. If you want to lose editing privileges, keep up that type of behavior. SunCrow (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Because instead of coming to me and saying you found additional information you'd like to add or think should be added, you took it upon yourself to reformat the whole damn article. Didn't make sense Snickers2686 (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Snickers2686, I would again encourage you to review WP:OWN. The fact that you created the article doesn't mean that any other editor needs to consult with you before editing it. I understand that you are upset, but acting like a child and reverting constructive edits for no reason is not the way to deal with that. SunCrow (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to continue with the personal attacks then this discussion is over. I'm going by the virtues of WP:CO. I'm not saying you need to for permission, just share ideas with editors that have a main interest in the page/project. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Snickers2686, give me a break. I have no problem with sharing ideas, and your behavior has been the opposite of collaborative. It has also wasted a good deal of my time. You should be thankful I didn't report you, and you should be appreciative that the article is improved (as one other editor has already noted above). If you think there is a better way to organize the article, we can discuss that, but I am not discussing anything with somebody who reverts dozens of other people's edits at a time and then plays the victim when he gets called on it. Cut it out. SunCrow (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the Rollback policy the summary is automated, just FYI. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)