User talk:Greyman70

James Frey
Wikipedia is often successful at producing good articles because their are standards that editors try to adhere to. The community standards promote consistency, consensus, accuracy, comity, etc. Why don't you incorporate the facts about the scandal rather than deleting them?

I think that would be consistent with the standards that were developed and are available at Help:Reverting. The do's and dont's contain several ideas that back up my perspective. For example, "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. " "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

I have tried to repect. After my initial revert, in subsequent edits I have included the additions of the "pro-Frey" editors such as where he lives, where he went to school, and the ratings of the books on Amazon.com. The materials that you deleted were added in good faith. They are substantiated. They are notable. These massive removal shouldn't be done with justification for the exclusion of specific materials. That has not happened at all. The fabrications (both proven and alleged/suspected) are a big part of Frey's fame, so I think the rationale for keeping them is very strong.

If you want to change how it's worded to achieve the best, most accurate article, than that's a good thing. Improvement is good. But I strongly disagree with removal of important, substantiated information that has been compiled by many editors. That's a whole different ball of wax. --JamesAM 19:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)