User talk:Accountability is cute

October 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Kostas Bakoyannis, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, allow me to disagree with you. Openly expressed opinions of politicians and public officials on policy issues are important to be included in wiki articles. The phrasing and style of the inclusion of the controversial comment was neutral and substantiated by factual evidence (an interview). The current article as it stands does not represent the work currently being undertaken by the person in question. In time, as his tenure as mayor progresses, the article can slowly contain successes / failures / and highlights. The inclusion of controversial comments made by a high profile political figure is such a highlight. You can see this by visiting wikipedia articles on other public figures. Thank you for your understanding. Further additions on detailed work by this public figure will be made in the future.


 * There are strict guidelines for biographies of living persons and your use of a primary source violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. Unless this interview has been discussed in reliable secondary sources it is undue weight to add it. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)\

Thank you for pointing this out. Nonetheless, this is not the case in this situation. According to primary source "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[c]" This is not the case in this situation. What we have here is a person on mainstream news, making very specific statements. The input added in the article stated: This person, made XYZ statement (quoted), on this news channel, on this date. Based on this, I strongly believe including this on the article is valid. What you say, and I would agree with in that case, would be saying XYZ person likes blue because they said that. That's not the case in this case. Based on the above, I would strongly encourage you to acknowledge the fact that the addition to this article is the neutral recounting of a statement - with particular weight and of significance to readers / adding important knowledge - and presented in that way. Thank you for your understanding.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Kostas Bakoyannis, you may be blocked from editing. Calling his views "controversial" is a personal interpretation of a primary source. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)