|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Which version of lede did you restored?
I need to talk to you. There's these 2 editors who keep vandalising articles. I know vandalising is a strong word, but they keep removing any viewpoint which doesn't agree with them, even if it is by a noted historian, and keep pushing their own agenda, often based on pseudo theories and own personal bias. So if a statement or finding doesn't fit with what they want to show, he keeps removing it. On the other hand he keeps adding stuff, statements made by people who aren't experts in this particular field, and keep exclusively pushing that. They exclusively only allow view points by "scholars" like Audrey, but noted and Celebrated historians like Abraham Eraly, and social workers like Jogan Shankar are only "pop-historians", who can't be trusted. They're even removing statements made by Britsish judges, or moving them into reference sections in the name of "reformatting". I don't know if I am the one who is biased, but I've tried to look at everybody's view points. And I did add statements and theories from both sides. If it's from the side they are against, it's removed, if it's from the side they want to show ,they edit into something even more extreme and show that exclusively. Say there is professor Yang, who postulated several theories, they exclusively allow only one side of the possible theories to be presented. I think you've come across them before as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk • contribs)
What are you talking about? The intro is too long, and I made it more concise. What is wrong with my edits. Metta79 (talk)
