User talk:Swimandrow

Kudos

Thanks for re-writing the controversies section on the Lurita Doan page. AbejaAbajo (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't see it the same way as AbejaAbajo. In particular, while your candor is appreciated, I take exception to language like this: "the fact that there was a bit of controversy and then she resigned, for those that were happy to see her go, keeping the controversies section is a bit of delightful schafenfreude." That's simply a reductive statement that foreshadows your POV edit. While I agree the section could be "cleaner," the proposed section is fatally flawed. Please don't follow through on your proposed article edit. --Happysomeone (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see that you went ahead with your proposed (revised and enlarged) edit anyways, without reaching consensus. I strongly disagree with this approach. --Happysomeone (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The unexplained rewrite was reverted. He didn't discuss on the Talk page. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

POV concerns

Ok, so here's the comments that really raised my eyebrows, which are still standing above, and have never really been explained: "the fact that there was a bit of controversy and then she resigned, for those that were happy to see her go, keeping the controversies section is a bit of delightful schafenfreude." So, not really a helpful way to start a discussion about a proposed edit and really challenges WP:AGF. Please read the guideline.

Then, my original concerns on your following opinions:

First

Doan was an administrator of an obscure governmental agency

Second

Was never disciplined and was let go for what appears to be an interagency personality conflict

Third

Doesn't seem to rise to any historic or scholarly value

I say opinions, because as I have explained before, these three points are not passing the fact threshold for me. That is one of the reasons why I am opposed to your edit.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)