User talk:Damien1234567890

May 2019
I'll look into it.  Uninvited Company 19:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Compare, , and. These edits make very similar changes: removal of "American businessperson convicted of fraud" from the short description, removal of the criminal conviction from the infobox, changing the January 2010 bid rejection to a claim that Brugnara "submitted the incorrect paperwork", puffing up the claims about Brugnara's artwork collection, etc. I do not agree with an unblock, and I strongly oppose it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my delayed response; I was expecting this request to take longer for a reply. The edits I made on the Brugnara article were solely referenced from the preexisting sources on the article, and if you initially allowed me, I was willing to explain them on the talk page. For example in regards to the Jan 2010 bid, I changed the wording to "incorrect paperwork" because nowhere in the source did I find that his $1m bid was rejected. Per the Forbes source, I made it clear the appraiser stated that the painting 'could' be a Da Vinci; not that it was a confirmed work. And regarding the other edits involving his criminal history, you guys are acting as if I blanked whole sections. I felt that I was improving Wikipedia's policy of NPOV by rewording the short description and editing the infobox. I don't think it was the crime Brugnara committed that made him notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, and I don't think it should be what defines him, much like how Martha Stewart and other celebrities' criminal history isn't the focal point of their article.

I wasn't trying to whitewash the article, and I'm not connected to the man. Prior to my block I intended to make more NPOV edits to other people's articles, and if you give me a chance I'll be sure to start a discussion on the article's talk page whenever I make a substantial edit. I do hope that you reconsider your decision. Damien1234567890 (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)