curprev01:4701:47, 3 May 2023 Drmiestalkcontribs m6,205 bytes0 Protected "Pedro Domingos": drive-by editors need to seek consensus on the talk page ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 01:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 01:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)))undo
curprev06:4006:40, 2 May 2023 24.16.141.231talk 7,693 bytes−5,351 Calling this researcher's tweets "scandals" is absurd and defamatory. Saying they're more important than his contributions (many not included in this page) is an insult to the AI community and symptomatic of a skewed perspective. Making large changes like this without, at a minimum, addressing the extensive previous discussion is improper conduct for a Wikipedia contributor.undoTags: Manual revertReverted
1 May 2023
curprev22:4822:48, 1 May 2023 149.142.103.137talk 13,044 bytes+5,351 Undid revision 1139461451 by 24.16.141.231 (talk) Pedro Domingos is better known at this point for the scandals than his research. Wikipedia should reflect why someone is popular, not just their academic accoladesundoTags: UndoRevertedpossible BLP issue or vandalism
15 February 2023
curprev07:3507:35, 15 February 2023 24.16.141.231talk 7,693 bytes−5,351 See extensive discussion beginning at 21:19, 22 December 2020 and ending at 17:27, 3 January 2022; also edit summary at 01:46, 2 November 2022: section is defamatory, against Wikipedia rules, and does not merit inclusion given it's about tweets.undoTags: Manual revertReverted
curprev00:3600:36, 15 February 2023 Jjsakontalkcontribs 13,061 bytes+5,351 Why does an anonymous account keep removing this with no justification beyond "see previous discussion"? What part of the previous discussion? I have read the previous discussion, addressed each point, added secondary sources, and the person removing it never addresses any of these modifications. If Domingos continues to gain notoriety by saying these things the controversies should be addressed. Geekwire has picked up multiple of these controversies and each are cited on this page.undoTags: UndoRevertedpossible BLP issue or vandalism
curprev00:5600:56, 4 February 2023 Jjsakontalkcontribs 13,044 bytes+3,169 Added secondary sources back for both 2020 and 2022 controversies. Very many of the people looking this guy up are going to be doing so due to these controversies, so I think it's essential to have this context on his Wiki page.undoTag: Reverted
curprev00:0300:03, 4 February 2023 Jjsakontalkcontribs 12,623 bytes+4,930 The same anonymous account keeps deleting this, citing unaddressed points in the discussion. These points are re: a 2020 debate. Most of that section has been deleted, and a positive quote from Domingos has since been added (citing his experience growing up in a dictatorship). The 2022 and 2023 controversies are all NEW, do not require secondary sources since they are tweets that exist right now, and deserve to be in his Wikipedia considering it's the number 1 thing bringing him attention onlineundoTags: UndoRevertedpossible BLP issue or vandalism
curprev21:3621:36, 3 February 2023 76.28.196.60talk 7,693 bytes−4,930 The person who reverted this does not seem to have read the previous discussion. Please do your homework and address the substantive points before making changes.undoTag: Reverted
curprev07:5407:54, 3 February 2023 Jjsakontalkcontribs 12,625 bytes+4,931 No rationale given by anon account for deletion of almost 5000 letters. What is the point of Wikipedia if you cannot look up information of a public figure with outspoken opinions in social media? The entire section is all quotes from him or official twitter accounts from his department denouncing his opinions, so there is no questionable content here. It's the actual record and deserves to be in his entry.undoTags: Undopossible BLP issue or vandalism
curprev20:1120:11, 2 February 2023 149.142.103.137talk 11,057 bytes+2,175 Undid revision 1012153521 by Norman Spantz (talk). It is not libel: actualy quotes and tweets of his are being used. If Domingos is going to continue publicly saying these things, they deserve to be in his Wikipedia entry.undoTags: Undopossible BLP issue or vandalism
curprev01:4601:46, 2 November 2022 76.28.196.60talk 8,883 bytes−360 Undid revision 1117763469 by 188.11.120.218 (talk) It's absurd to have one paragraph in a three-paragraph section about a long and distinguished career be about a tweet. (And it's absurd to have two of the three paragraphs be about marginal controversies, rather than the actual research and career.)undoTag: Undo