User talk:Portugueseguru

WP:NOTNEWS
WP:NOTNEWS is not a justification for removing relevant sourced content from an article. It is not original reporting or routine coverage or gossip, the content is significantly and directly related to the subject and has reliable sources. If you want to remove such an amount of content, you should discuss it on the talk page first. ... disco spinster   talk  00:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you check, that content was added by an IP without any prior discussion first. The content violates both NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism, featuring commentary that may as well violate WP:NPOV. The onus is on the one who introduced this to discuss. Portugueseguru (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The content was added by an established editor, not an IP, and fully sourced. There is no commentary, only descriptions of what was reported. ... disco spinster   talk  00:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And what about this? Does it mean all recent news or politicians' comments should now be added to Wikipedia articles? There're examples of 'established' editors removing information added by that IP based on it failing notability guidelines. Portugueseguru (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Another example. Portugueseguru (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If the comment is related to an investigation and significant reporting on it, then yes. You have removed not only the politician's comments, but also the information about the organizations being investigated. ... disco spinster   talk  00:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And if there's just a politician's comment or a news article about a suspended coach? What is your standard for inclusion? Portugueseguru (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said above, if the content relates to an investigation with significant news reporting, then it is appropriate to include. ... disco spinster   talk  00:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is wrong. I suggest you self-revert. You can create an article about that coach and add this information there, but it should not be featured on the governing body page. Portugueseguru (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It relates to the governing body as well as the coach, since he was a head coach within the organization, and the comments were about the organization impeding the investigation. So yes, it is appropriate to be on that page. I find it interesting that all the content you are removing has to do with sexual abuse within these organizations. ... disco spinster   talk  00:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With the U.S. fencing federation, after your reverts the page is now back to looking like a hit piece, listing all the possible negatives without any positives. If you think that is okay, I don't even know what to say. Portugueseguru (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping you from adding sourced content about all the wonderful things the US Fencing Federation has done for the world. ... disco spinster   talk  00:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for your advice. Portugueseguru (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have studied Manual of Style/Layout, Controversial articles and Criticism. As there's only one specific topic of controversy discussed in these articles, sexual abuse allegations/convictions, it is better to create a specific "Controversy section" and move the content there. Portugueseguru (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe there should be a unified standard. Just because the US Olympic Committee created an oversight organization and there're publicized cases of sexual abuse scandals, owing to to press freedom in the US, doesn't mean that only US governing bodies should contain information related to these violations. If you check articles about Chinese, Russian, Indian or any other governing bodies, you will not find any mention of the scandals or suspended coaches. Portugueseguru (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Here you restored general information about a suspended athlete and the number of safesport cases. It doesn't concern any ongoing investigation or the organization impeding it. Please, follow the standard you created and delete the information that is not directly related to the governing bodies in question. Portugueseguru (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * From the OC Register article, a quote from the CEO of USA Shooting:
 * "We're taking somebody found guilty of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and putting them in the (Olympic) village with athletes from a hundred different countries," Suggs, the USA Shooting CEO, said in an interview this week prior to the stay being lifted. "There's never been a named Olympian compete while facing a sexual misconduct suspension.
 * "This makes it a very important case for USA Shooting, the USOPC and the U.S. Center for SafeSport."
 * Please read the actual content before unilaterally deciding it's not relevant. ... disco spinster   talk  00:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (USA Swimming) for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ... disco spinster   talk  00:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain you behaviour? You haven't replied to my previous message. Portugueseguru (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)