User talk:MPLSpolitico

February 2022

Hello, I'm Ifnord. I noticed that you recently removed content from Phillipe Cunningham without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You are welcome to add referenced material to counter this but please discuss your proposed removal of referenced material on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my revert

Hi MP, quick sanity check on my end for removing edit of yours. Somehow managed to look over the edit summary you gave, hence why I labelled it as unsupported. Apologies! FireFlyingly (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Your editing at Phillipe Cunningham shows a special interest in showing him in a positive light, and includes facts not available in the cited sources (such as where he met his husband). This leads me to believe that you know Cunningham personally (or are, in fact, Cunningham himself). In either case, this means that your editing of his biography page represents a conflict of interest, which, at the very least, should be declared prior to any further editing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Your editing at Phillipe Cunningham shows a special interest in showing him in a positive light and attempting to scrub anything negative about him for political and financial gain. There are facts not available in the cited sources (such as where he met his husband). This leads me to believe that you are his husband or Phillipe himself. You editing of his biography page represents a conflict of interest, for the soul purpose of personal gain. This page has been left as is for years with only small, edits until you came and completely changed the page. This will not go unchallenged. Mplsnirvana (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mplsnirvana (talk) Mplsnirvana, the source for where Cunningham and his husband met is the tretter collection interview, cited in the article. MPLSpolitico (talk)

Noticeboard discussion

Your editing at Phillipe Cunningham is being discussed at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:WikiDan61, thank you for your diligence. Can you please clarify from your perspective what the difference is between whitewashing and neutralizing language? I initially came to Cunningham's page because as a constituent, I was really proud of all the work he did and was quite devastated when he lost. I thought it was pretty unfair to have his page littered with overly negative and controversial content. I guess I'm just wondering how balance is created without neutralizing editorialized language and, furthermore, how to address those edits that are very clearly made in bad faith, i.e. the 'powderhorn 9' content Mplssouthside/Mplsnirvana added. Cunningham did so much work, can you please explain why adding it to the page is considered whitewashing? I left the negative/controversial content that the other use actually properly sources - and neutralized their editorial language. I've been monitoring this page at this point purely because that person appears to be trolling. Thanks again for your guidance and all of your effort to maintain wikipedia data integrity. MPLSpolitico

I've answered this question at the notice board. Please do not further edit the article until the noticeboard discussion is concluded. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]