User talk:Scruffy1234567

May 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Daniel Neiditch has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Daniel Neiditch was changed by Scruffy1234567 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.855482 on 2017-05-23T18:54:38+00:00.

Connection to Daniel Neiditch
I have to ask, since you have edited exclusively about Daniel Neiditch for many months now, if you are connected with him in some way? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bri! I have actually never met or talked to Daniel Neiditch. I read an article on his work with the homeless issue in New York. My self being homeless at one point in my life has stuck with me. I have been following his progress in real estate, solar as well as chairty work. I saw people severly vandalizing his page and felt the need to stand up. I never was on Wikipedia before. I think all the info that was there prior was relevant to a person such as me coming to Wikipedia to read about a person. I saw you deleting items based on your interpretation of what is relevant or not. I do and still do believe it is relevant info. I hope you do not take offense to anything I am saying here. Scruffy1234567 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, what happened when you added back this content, you added back articles that don't actually discuss Daniel Neiditch in depth and don't really contribute to a well-written, healthy, neutral Wikipedia article. They really just make it look like puffery, as if someone had scraped up every article mentioning his name, like the Voice of America piece about solar . If you agree, and would rather see the article neutrally written then maybe you'd reconsider and take them back out again. You should know that when you reverted Doc James and me, it does give the appearance that you are on the side of keeping in irrelevant content in this article. He and I have both been cleaning up poorly written articles for a long time, and that kind of writing is easy to spot when you've seen it as much as we have. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)