User talk:Blinkettfoo

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BDD. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Tucker Reed without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! BDD (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

User Blinkettfoo has been making every attempt to delete any reference whatsoever to the subject's activism. At first Blinkettfoo alleged the article was biased and called its neutrality into question. The article, however, states facts and cites reliable news sources. Where appropriate, it references alternate points of view and never asserts the subject's claims as true (note the repeated use of the word "alleged").

According to Wiki guidelines:

"There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

   1. The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV)
   2. While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
   3. Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).
   4. The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
   5. The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.
   6. A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.
   7. The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.
   8. Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms."

None of that occurs within the article. Perhaps Blinkettfoo would argue that mention of the subject's complaints against her university is "given undue attention," but it remains her most notable action to date. When the neutrality angle failed, Blinkettfoo resorted to unilaterally making a decision regarding the "notability" of the subject's activism. Blinkettfoo's decision is sexist and patently wrong. Just because the civil rights movement surrounding gender discrimination on-campus is relatively new does not mean it is not noteworthy. The subject's activism has been chronicled by TIME magazine, she was the subject of a profile by The Chronicle of Higher Education (and referenced in several other articles by that publication), she has been quoted in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and appeared on CNN. Removal of the activism section of her article is censorship that Wikipedia should not tolerate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTempeste (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]