User talk:Great2bnaustin

Hi, please do not remove sourced content from the Devos article without a good reason. In general, whitewashing violates our neutral point of view policy. If you have a specific issue with a specific point in a section or think that a certain section should be removed please discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Please stop removing things from Dick DeVos or you may be subject to blockage. ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

When I came across this article two days ago it was quite possibly the most negatively POVd article I have yet read on Wikipedia. Despite extensive discussion about the negative POV, the article remained significantly unbalanced. The article has improved over the past couple of days, but selective use of "sourced" materials continues. As it stands now, the "social issues" section of this article stakes a political position rather than dispassionately conveying facts.great2bnaustin 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think Lar's comment was meant as intimidation, however, repeated removal of sourced content without explanation can be construed as vandalism or disruption. Since you are now discussing things on the article talk page, I wouldn't worry about it. JoshuaZ 04:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Lars redacted per my policy...great2bnaustin 05:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I recommend not redacting or removing comments unless you have a good reason. The practice is frowned upon and is considered to be sometimes disruptive in that it makes it more difficult for someone to read through a conversation. JoshuaZ 05:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, thanks, I think you make a good point. Comments posted to user pages should not be redacted unless there is a significant reason. I will keep that in mind in the future.great2bnaustin 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Great2bnaustin: I left you a comment on your talk page, and you responded, and I responded in turn, keeping everything threaded. You're welcome to remove comments of mine as you like, even if they are responses to you, but I assume removed comments have been seen and internalised, and if their removal means another admin wasn't aware of all the context, that's not a good thing, in general. Just for reference though, redacted means moved or reorganized, not deleted entirely, so you may have misspok. Also for reference it's Lar, not Lars... Finally, if you want to say "per my policy" it helps to actually have one, as I do. Mine is near the top of my talk page in case you missed it. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 06:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)