User talk:LoveLuckyBird

Talkback
I appreciate the help on the article. The material you removed was supported by sources cited in the body of the text, and was the court's opinion that Brown was not properly notified (or for that matter, the tribe). I went into more detail on the article talk page. Regards,   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks GregJackP. I have been following this case for months and would like to help. My concern at the moment is the current structure of the article leans toward how events transpired based on Brown's side. As we know, with this being a legal case, there are two sides. Hopefully, we can work together to ensure this article is as informative and balanced as possible. Few thoughts, if the article characterizes Brown, it should also characterize the other party. Also, in the history section, the article should outline the historical perspective from both sides. Hope to be able to help with edits and will be sure to cite any sources. Best regards LoveLuckyBird 16:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with making sure that both sides are fairly presented, so long as we can: 1) use reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the parties; 2) we try to avoid an Anglo-American focus; 3) we balance any comments that are diametrically opposed, and label them as opinions or views and not facts; 4) we abide by BLP policies, which require good sourcing for negative information and to balance those with positive comments on the individual; 5) we use consensus, talking about disagreements on the talk pages rather than edit war; and 6) we remember to assume good faith, which does not mean we have to agree on content, but that we are civil about such disagreements and realize the the goal is to build a good article.


 * I look forward to working with you on the article. Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Montanabw. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Montanabw (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (talk) All edits are based on information directly from the SC ruling. I made sure to stay on point with factual statements only. The current state of this entire page is less than neutral. It is very much pro-Dusten Brown and I was merely trying to balance out the information. I hope to continue to provide updates and relevant, balanced, unbiased information to this page as time allows. As I mentioned to GregJackP  early on, I have been following this case for many months. Will try to work harder at ensuring all content is sourced. Thank you.


 * Actually, the page is now pretty neutral and appears to have positive things to say about both sides, with irrelevant, non-encyclopedic information removed. My own advice on editing wikipedia is to be careful with adjectives, usually simple statements are the most neutral. (Obviously, if it was a dark and stormy night, one needs a few adjectives, but to say "it was a scary dark and stormy night" would cross the NPOV line..."scary" is subjective... (smile))   Montanabw (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Montanabw I read some information in the brief filed on behalf of the birth mother. I added it to the case history section but am unsure of how to correctly cite the source. I would appreciate your help in making sure that the references are formatted correctly. I hope you will not remove the information as I feel it is relevant to the case and the background. Just need to ensure the format meets Wikipedia standards. Thank you for the help. User:LoveLuckyBird 19 March 2013