User talk:2A0D:6FC7:440:D397:C598:8D1E:BE87:41F

May 2024
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @MrOllie why do you keep removing the section? You mentioned it’s missing resources but it clearly states the sources and the section is highly relevant. Please explain why you keep removing it over and over 2A0D:6FC7:440:D397:C598:8D1E:BE87:41F (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you are pushing your POV in a very non-neutral way, and because the section does not have the required secondary reliable sources to be written properly. No number of unreliable, primary sources are sufficient here. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate how is it my POV? GitHub is where the project is hosted which makes it the most reliable source. The project owner and maintainer clearly states in his own words in these source that the project is political which supports the claim in the paragraph. 2A0D:6FC7:440:D397:C598:8D1E:BE87:41F (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources that meet the guidelines I've already linked above, not the support forums of github pages, or user-generated content like hackernews. And Wikipedia is definitely not a place to give your opinion on what's on a github page. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like you give your own opinion here instead of being objective. The paragraph is valid and the github source support the claim in the paraphrase. It’s not a forum but a code project management. Removing this paragraph harms the readers of the article since they miss a highly important information. It’s unfortunate that you removed it. 2A0D:6FC7:440:D397:C598:8D1E:BE87:41F (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the paragraph is not 'valid', it plainly does not meet Wikipedia's content policies as I have explained. You're simply on the wrong site - Wikipedia is not the place to share this kind of thing. I suggest you try social media. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the childish advice. Clearly you are biased and the "secondary source" is just an excuse to remove this legit paragraph as it doesn't play along with your political views. You originally removed it due to "it's just one example so it's not worth adding a paragraph about it". I used to donate to Wikipedia but never again. Good luck 2A0D:6FC2:503B:9500:4A6:FA91:DBCF:9F71 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)