Katefan0 wrote:
Thanks David. Please let me know what they say.
I just cc'd it to the AC for information ;-) We've had a few of these come to our attention. (Just because it's obviously not an arbitration matter doesn't mean we don't get EVERYTHING.)
I think we're getting toward some sensible way to treat these things here in this thread.
I'd like to reiterate that the information I am assuming he's unhappy
with wasn't backed up by sourcing, it was just a crazy rant about his relationship with UT and his book being biased.
Stuff like that, you cut it, say "see talk" in the edit summary and say "source please" ;-)
- d.
Stuff like that, you cut it, say "see talk" in the edit summary and
say "source please" ;-)
Yeah, for sure. I removed it immediately, but Lavergne's complaint came after it had been excised from the live article for at least a day. Which means he must either take issue with the fact that the prior edit, which was removed, is either in the edit history of the article, or still present on the talk page. (I removed the information from the talk page, but it remains in the history.)
K.