User talk:Jason17760

Laurie Mylroie page
Hi Jason17760,

I've noticed your edits on the Laurie Mylroie page are decidely non-NPOV. Most of them appear to be removing any information which could be construed as negative, much of it cited with reliable sources. Your additions include many peacock terms, which are also discouraged.

I've offered to discuss it with you on the talk page, but maybe you didn't see that. I will be reverting the article (again) to its more NPOV-state, and hope that you will take the time to discuss changes next time before you feel compelled to make them. If not, I'll need to elevate our non-discussion to an admin. Thanks! Rockypedia (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Further non-NPOV edits to the Laurie Mylroie lead
Please stop your non-NPOV editing on the Laurie Mylroie page. I'd like to not escalate this if possible, but if you persist in trying to add more and more positive spin to the lead, I'll have to. The sentences you persist in adding are already in the body of the article, where they belong. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You are in the wrong. You are biased against Dr. Mylroie. The critical quotations that you are putting in the lead are also in the text. The same principle has to apply to both criticism and support. Moreover, there needs to be balance. You put three criticisms in the lead. If that is to be the case, then Dr. Mylroie gets three supporting quotes in the lead. However, you have repeatedly deleted two of the three supporting quotes. So now I have deleted two of your three criticisms. That is fair. But what you are doing is not.


 * You're actually incorrect - three names of terrorism experts are in the lead who have discredited Mylroie, and no quotes. There is one quote in the lead which praises her work highly.  Meanwhile, I myself did not add any of these criticisms - they were already on the page, and in the lead, before you began your edits, all of which appear to be heavily biased in favor of presenting Mylroie in a more positive light.  This could be seen as advocacy for the subject, which is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia.


 * I do welcome your response and dialogue, as many previous attempts to engage in a discussion with you have failed. However, to say I am biased is incorrect - I was merely attempting to restore balance to the page that had been upended by your extensive editing towards one point of view.  I've restored the lead to how it was - if you engage in further white-washing, I will revert it. If you continue your non-NPOV edits, that will indicate it's time to get an admin involved. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.