User talk:T.E.Shaw

T.E. Shaw-

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and kindly ask you to not unilaterally edit or delete the content of this entry without proper citation or include weasel words- and provide objectively reasonable rationale for any edits or deletion.

Given your pattern of edits, it gives the appearance that you are trying to soften the entry and maximize positivity of Benjamin instead of contributing meaningful edits and content additions.

Justice4nyc -

Your additions, all of which were negative, seem to demonstrate a bias against the Senator. You have made more than a dozen edits and each of them has been to include a piece of negative information, despite the fact that a great deal of positive information has been reported by reputable sources. I have included that positive information to restore balance to the page and I kindly ask you not to unilaterally edit or delete the content.

T.E. Shaw-

I am glad there is a clear record of revisions for this entry. Every entry I made were cited with verifiable reason. Your first set of edits either had no documented reason or the reason was vague and unverifiable-- you simply deleted an entire section of the content you deemed was not "positive" enough. Then you have the audacity to restore most of my entry, soften the language, and then accuse me of unilaterally deleting entries? Who is biased here? Look at all biographical entries in Wikipedia. Not a single entry has "Issues" as a section when it should be "Controversies". If there are so-called "positive" aspects that is noteworthy- then cite it and include it in the entry- but do not encroach into other parts of the entry that was written in objective and non-biased tone and language. Just because an entry content itself is negative does not mean it is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice4nyc (talk • contribs) 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)