User talk:66.11.165.99

June 2021
Hello, I'm JPxG. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to List of Islamophobic incidents—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. jp×g 05:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You think cleaning up the extremely biased entry and removing factually incorrect information and outright lies and broken links is "not constructive"? 🤨 Here's some problems with that entry:


 * There is NOTHING in any news or reports about him "targeting random Muslims".
 * They were not waiting to cross the street, they were walking on the sidewalk.
 * There is no information about them dying at hospital, witnesses indicated they were already dead at the scene; police haven't confirmed either way.
 * There is currently absolutely no evidence of him being "a far-right extremist", and certainly not in the page linked in the citation (did you even bother to check? I DID. 🙄)
 * The sentence "The victims were all from the same family of three generations." is clunky and horribly written. (as is "the ones killed…" and "drove into a street") - who the hell wrote this? 🤨
 * The line about them being hit "in the Hyde Park." is factually incorrect, they were hit on a sidewalk on Hyde Park road, NOT IN A PARK. 🤦
 * The type of attack is listed as "vehicular rampage" which is anything but NPOV; in fact, every other vehicular entry says "vehicular attack", RAMPAGE is extremely biased. 😒
 * This entry is longer than almost every other entry in this page, it goes into far too much detail for the purposes of this list.
 * The discussion of who was injured or died is also clunky and quite redundant and repetitive and unnecessarily verbose. 🙄
 * The accusation of his motive is premature at best and false at worst. As I said in the edit note, the case just started and the trial has barely begun, let alone there being a conviction. 🤦 This entry doesn't even say "seems to be" or "may have been" or even "presumed to be", it makes the statement of his motive as if it is a fact, a confirmed foregone conclusion which it most certainly is NOT.
 * This entry is extremely unprofessionally written and incredibly biased. WikiPedia demands a NPOV. If you don't understand that, you have no right to be messing around with articles. 🙄

I'm reverting my change. If you undo it again and revert to that overtly biased nonsense, I'll be filing a complaint. 😠