User talk:Cdrusnesq

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States) into Military history of Asian Americans. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edit to Steven Chu
Hi, Cdrusnesq. Your edit to Steven Chu has been reverted, partly by an unregistered editor and partly by me. These reversions were based on Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Two sections of that policy are pertinent: the section on impartial tone and the section on due and undue weight. When you use phrasing like "demonstrating his naïveté," you violate the former provision, and when you put negative content in the lede section of an article without establishing its importance to an overall view of the subject's life, you violate the latter provision. It's also important to consider Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which requires deference to articles' subjects. That doesn't mean we can't include negative content about people—we frequently do—but we must be extra sensitive to bias and undue weight.

The quote about gasoline is already in the body of the article, and I think you would have a hard time getting consensus to have it in the lede. I didn't check the source on the assertion about the White House's internal criticism of him, but assuming that the source checks out, I think there's a place for that in the section of the article about his tenure as Secretary. It's just that that statement needs to be worded impartially, i.e. without presenting the criticisms as fact. If you would like input on how to word that, I'm happy to help—just reply to this message and link to my username, e.g. with the markup . —  PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  22:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)