User talk:CLCStudent/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Fourth branch of government

I reverted the first edit to this article and you have reverted three more similar edits. These were made by an IP who now has left a message on my user talk page. The message is signed "Dr J Leeper." Since your talk page is protected, you may wish to read this as information. To me, the message simply reinforces that the user wishes to change what is a balanced article about a term which has been used to refer to various groups, institutions, agencies, principles, etc. into an advocacy piece for a particular point of view.

There were many problems with these edits: adding the word "inappropriately" before other optional uses of the phrase, disregard for the fact that there is no official definition for the term and it has been used in various contexts whether appropriate or not, Manual of Style violations which include starting with a truly inappropriate flat conclusion before a proper introductory paragraph and adding text and a footnote to a category at the end of the article and spoiling that link, verifiability, and undue weight, if nothing else. I chose one revert option but others could have been used. Often, I leave a separate message about What Wikipedia is not after I revert such edits but I also sometimes wait to see if the inappropriate edit is a one-off. I am not sure it would have made much difference but in retrospect a more complete message may have been a good idea.

This is not to say a neutral sentence or two of clarification would be inappropriate as long as any questionable fact has a citation.

I will respond to this on my talk page as briefly as I can. I think that the user may have quit for now to avoid being blocked but the edit to my page is recent so this may continue.

The user insinuates that I have a political purpose in reverting the edit. I would have reverted any advocacy edit from any point of view. Also, I try to maintain strict neutrality and have reverted vandalism and disruptive edits to articles about politicians across the spectrum and even a few articles like this. Of course, a new user doesn't know that I am simply trying to keep articles in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I find it somewhat comical to be questioned if not attacked for having one point of view in one article and the opposite point of view in another.

Happy editing and keep up the good work. Donner60 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)