User talk:Sfprog

Editing concerns

 * 1) Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from . Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.   -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 18:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Daly
I appreciate the "good faith" but would prefer you to respond to my point. A year ago I attempted to add "well-sourced" content and was routinely reverted. How did that not violate the Wiki rules? And if you want to display some "good faith", where's the material from the Bay Guardian -- the only mainstream publication without a vendetta against Daly?--Sfprog 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your wholesale and indiscriminate reversions of the Chris Daly article, which are bordering on vandalism and destructive editing. The effect of your edits has been, in essence, to delete any criticism of Daly, regardless of whether it was quoted in a reliable source. This violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and destroys the valid, well-researched work of others. You have refused to discuss the specific objections to individual parts of the material you remove on the article's Talk page, instead deleting huge parts of the article, leaving only cryptic edit summaries such as "Less debatable" or "Conflicting sources". (Neither debatability nor conflict among sources is a reason to remove otherwise valid, sourced material from an article.)

If you have additional, well-sourced material that presents alternative views of the incidents described, or of other biographical facts, please feel free to add them to the article. However, please do not remove or delete the work of others. Thanks, --MCB 04:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you trace the history of the page, you will find that I initially did edit, piece by piece, the content of the page. I was routinely reverted and ended up in a revert war that locked the page. When unlocked, the revert war continued. I can go back to my original editing of each section to post some favorable sourced coverage of Daly, but I assume that I will just be reverted by the Daly-haters, so I figure it's easier just to engage in the revert war. --Sfprog 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why assume that good edits will be reverted, or that "Daly-haters" are the only people besides you who edit here? As I said, the right thing to do from a Wikipedia standpoint is to add balancing material. If it's well-sourced, I'll help make sure it is retained. But wholesale deletion of any and all criticism of someone who I'm sure you'd agree is the most controversial politician in San Francisco is a significant violation of NPOV, and raises questions of attempted article ownership and conflict of interest. Continuing to make massive reverts, after being warned, with the remark "I figure it's easier just to engage in the revert war" is a pretty certain way to get blocked or banned. --MCB 06:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As an initial show of good faith, I have removed two links to works critical of Daly from the External Links section, on the grounds that they do not support anything specific in the article and do not add anything of particular value to the article, by the criteria in Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. --MCB 06:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)