Talk:Street Roots/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Tag
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Is the tag at the top of the article necessary? More specifically, I'm asking, is there any non-neutral content that's problematic? If not, then I think the tag should be removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: You've been working on newspaper articles recently. What do you think? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like a question for Graywalls, without diving in I'm not sure what they found objectionable or whether it's been addressed. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, Thanks. Yes, Graywalls, are any of the article's 10 sentences currently problematic? I see you've checked for neutrality based on the template at the top of this page. If you don't see any neutrality problems, why should the tag be kept? Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Contents inserted by those two COI editors that wrote the contents that presents it in the way as desired by the publisher remains. The tone that remains in lede is especially non-neutral. This is the version that was added mostly by the COIs [1] phrasing like "members of the local homeless community" is POV. I'm frustrated that AB is more concerned about the tag flagging the occurrence of prohibited undisclosed paid editing (editing as payrolled members of the company) than the fact UDPE occurred and the remaining biased presentation on the article. That style of speaking, in my opinion is consistent with the the "Political alignment Homeless advocacy" description. That sort of speech should remain within their publication, not in our articles. Graywalls (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I'm not frustrated by the tag, I'm just trying to identify problematic content to remove so we can remove the tag. What's wrong with working to remove a tag? Many editors are actively working to remove tags as we speak -- that's part of improving this project. Can you please remove the remaining content you find problematic, so we can remove the tag? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently you're. Somehow, you get so antsy about making the tags go away on articles I have identified and located prohibited UDPE incidents; but you show no concern to the fact they're occurring. It's not "editors", it's you, usually. Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please remove the tag when you've finished removing non-neutral content. This is not a controversial ask. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have already communicated to you that I am finding your expectations of timeline out of touch with reality. In this case, it only took you mere hours to begin complaining. Other editors too have expressed concerns that you're on an unusual haste to see actions done on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, This article has 10 sentences. Just trim the bad content and remove the tag. You're welcome to be skeptical of my preference to address and remove tags, but I'm skeptical of why you insist on keeping tags longer than necessary when the fixes are so simple. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't take directions from you. It seems to me you're working on Wikipedia full time, all the time. Your constant hassling to compel change immediately, complaining within hours, reverting the instant something you don't like is done, etc. is unreasonable in the view of reasonable time frame. I will get to it when I can in a reasonable time frame; not necessarily on YOUR deadline. Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Right, whatever. If you don't remove the tag soon, I will. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't take directions from you. It seems to me you're working on Wikipedia full time, all the time. Your constant hassling to compel change immediately, complaining within hours, reverting the instant something you don't like is done, etc. is unreasonable in the view of reasonable time frame. I will get to it when I can in a reasonable time frame; not necessarily on YOUR deadline. Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, This article has 10 sentences. Just trim the bad content and remove the tag. You're welcome to be skeptical of my preference to address and remove tags, but I'm skeptical of why you insist on keeping tags longer than necessary when the fixes are so simple. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have already communicated to you that I am finding your expectations of timeline out of touch with reality. In this case, it only took you mere hours to begin complaining. Other editors too have expressed concerns that you're on an unusual haste to see actions done on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please remove the tag when you've finished removing non-neutral content. This is not a controversial ask. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently you're. Somehow, you get so antsy about making the tags go away on articles I have identified and located prohibited UDPE incidents; but you show no concern to the fact they're occurring. It's not "editors", it's you, usually. Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I'm not frustrated by the tag, I'm just trying to identify problematic content to remove so we can remove the tag. What's wrong with working to remove a tag? Many editors are actively working to remove tags as we speak -- that's part of improving this project. Can you please remove the remaining content you find problematic, so we can remove the tag? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Contents inserted by those two COI editors that wrote the contents that presents it in the way as desired by the publisher remains. The tone that remains in lede is especially non-neutral. This is the version that was added mostly by the COIs [1] phrasing like "members of the local homeless community" is POV. I'm frustrated that AB is more concerned about the tag flagging the occurrence of prohibited undisclosed paid editing (editing as payrolled members of the company) than the fact UDPE occurred and the remaining biased presentation on the article. That style of speaking, in my opinion is consistent with the the "Political alignment Homeless advocacy" description. That sort of speech should remain within their publication, not in our articles. Graywalls (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think AB has expressed an inclination one way or another (at least in this discussion). It's always a worthwhile question why a tag is present. If there are reasons for it, and they're not readily apparent, they should be expressed on the talk page, so that editors can more easily address them.
- If you're referring to the two editors flagged at the top of this page, GW, the most recent edit by them was in 2012. For easy access here's a diff showing the changes since then. I'm happy to work on any issues that come up (but on he face of it, I don't understand how "members of the local homeless community" comes across as biased -- it seems to me like a simple statment of fact.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's an ongoing thing between him and I. He's always bothered by my tags. I think that it should be completely re-written based on facts in a totally neutral tone and not build contents and move away from the choices they have included. I have actually been working on wording today only to have AB rolling in and objecting to tag mere hours later. The COI notice in talk page, if you look at the talk page have remained for a long time. I've just changed it to "paid", because it became apparently that these two weren't volunteers. Graywalls (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, I plan to remove the tag soon, unless you object. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Define "soon", because you and I are obviously have differences in the definition of soon. Graywalls (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Very soon. You could have addressed the problem in the amount of time you took writing the above comments. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I see no reason for the tag to be there, after having read all of the 1,000+ words above. If there's a problem (and I don't see it), it can't be a very complicated one, and I'm sure it could be solved with some straightforward rewording, with minimum effort. I don't see what part of Wikipedia's purpose the tag serves. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Very soon. You could have addressed the problem in the amount of time you took writing the above comments. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm bothered by your tags too. Your claim of undisclosed payments is unfounded, and you have shirked any duty to address the issues raised in the tag. If you want to claim COI, you need to specify what parts of the article violate policy. Reywas92Talk 18:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Define "soon", because you and I are obviously have differences in the definition of soon. Graywalls (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the tag per consensus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Reywas92, the allegation of connected editing in talk page pre-existed for quite some time, which was inserted here The sources used in the article already reveals who the executive director is; and I think it's reasonable to conclude executive directors are paid a salary. The presence of account by the company name, and the executive director's name having done significant editing, in my opinion fulfills the reasonable assumption that they were making the edits as a part of their work related functions. In any case, as I said, I'm working to sanitize POV stuff; but another believer appointed self appointed as consensus status arbitrator again. If at your own discretion feels the tag is not justified after reading this response, I don't object. Cheers, Graywalls (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reywas92, This is ridiculous. Would you be willing to remove the tag? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Another Believer:, as I said, I took care of it today. I revised the prose to reflect what was said in the sources and better describe the POV held by this paper. Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Cool, I guess you wanted to do the honors yourself, and insert a bit of sloppily-formatted text as well. Thanks? @Peteforsyth and Reywas92: You might take a look at some of the recent edits, I can't keep cleaning up after this editor, especially if they're just going to revert any improvements I make. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is an embarrassment. This 2013 edit removed everything Israel Bayer added that may be COI, and the article has been well transformed since its initial creation. There is no point to slapping a tag on it that the article may require clean up when such clean up has already occurred years ago (and is still occurring). Reywas92Talk 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reywas92, Welcome to working with this editor. I've been going through this for 2 months now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- the banner stayed in place from the day it was placed. In the last weeks, I'd say it was well cleaned up. If you think it's sloppy and want to c/e without changing the meaning or omitting information, I don't object. Graywalls (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: You ok with me archiving this discussion? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fine by me, and probably for the best. Thanks. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.