User talk:131.181.238.213

Your [|recent edit] of Death of Elijah Doughty pushed a POV by your own admission, introduced a factual error (it wasn't just the windows) that wasn't supported by any source and significantly reduced the clarity of the description (most people don't know what red ochre is). Please respect the principles of good editing on Wikipedia. I am the one who originally wrote the sentence that you objected to and you totally mischaracterised it. Your shortened description would lead many readers of Wikipedia to erroneously conclude that the NSW Supreme Court is somehow linked to the WA Supreme Court, which is a much more egregious error than misunderstanding the paint protest. (202.144.170.96 (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC))

There was no point of view - removing extraneous information is not pushing a POV. The link you provided did not mention the red ochre being spread on anything other than the windows. Assuming that most people don't know red ochre is pushing a POV not backed up by evidence - I've included the link to ochre anyway. Your justification that the description provided would lead many readers to conclude the NSW Supreme Court is linked to the WA Supreme Court is patently absurd. The manner in which your description was written was pushing a POV - I have now corrected your mistake.


 * This article originally said the protestors vandalised the court, which is what the reference said, but you changed it to say they only vandalised the windows and they only did so with red ochre. How then do you explain this: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/24/07/42A1BA8300000578-4723924-image-a-22_1500877940781.jpg and this? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/24/07/42A0D34400000578-4723924-image-a-5_1500877651604.jpg You made these protestors sound justified when actually they protested at a totally irrelevant, unrelated location. (125.63.26.115 (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC))

The photos and reference provided only state the windows were allegedly vandalised. Nothing in those photos suggest otherwise. I have simply stated the facts and have not made any implications on the actions of the protestors.