User talk:174.88.80.128

January 2023
Hello, I'm Schazjmd. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lexipol without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Schazjmd  (talk)  17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Stop goaltending, paid troll. Both removals were for ADVERTISING. Have your bosses explain this to you. 174.88.80.128 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary said "WP:A". For advertising, it's WP:ADS. WP:A is for attribution. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well now that you know what it's for, there's no reason for you to revert again. "The Stevies" is not a notable award. It's a paid service, which Lexipol bought into for consideration. You obviously work for the company, given your loooooong edit history on the page. So go ahead and revert again. 174.88.80.128 (talk) 174.88.80.128 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I restored it as a "notable" award, given that it has a Wikipedia article that has survived three AFDs.I wrote the article after reading the Texas Law Review article by Eagly and Schwartz. While I personally would be happy to rely solely on their examination of the company and the many critiques of Lexipol in other publications, the Wikipedia article should reflect all significant sources, not just the negative ones (WP:NPOV). Schazjmd   (talk)  18:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)