Talk:JD Rossetti

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Removing info about Restraining Orders without discussion[edit]

If the info is newsworthy and has affected the individual's public perception and political career, I see no reason for it to be removed. If the article went into unwarranted detail or overemphasized, then that would be a problem, but as of now it only briefly references the news coverage in a neutral manner. I don't like that the message when removing it was "Probably done by his ex.This info is not relevant and is personal in nature". If it is reported by reputable sources, it is not personal in nature and accusing other editors of being the person's ex-wife is weird. Either way, we should discuss it before just deleting it.LikeABaller (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I initially removed the sentence because the link was dead, but it appears to be working now. However, it seems very odd to me that you opened this account in Jan and immediately made this edit to this page and then until April didn't make any edits, logged in again and reversed this a second time. It seems to me that there is some kind of conflict of interest and your only reason to have this account is to make edits to this page. The rest of the edits seem to be random so you can hide this fact. I am not going to reverse this myself, but would like at least one other editor to review and comment. My vote would be to remove due to this conflict of interest and that there is only one single source of news about this, which does not make it too reliable. In politics there is always those that have hidden agendas and lot's of fake news! Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this while updating random page for Washington House of Representatives members. OP was blocked for socking. In any case I feel WP:DUE should apply here. Patriot0239 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]