Revision as of 03:14, 21 April 2022 edit 173.77.248.223 (talk) →‎RfC: Should the lead section have any citations? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:14, 21 April 2022 edit undo Domiy (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,256 edits →‎Recent edits around neutrality and bias Next edit →
Line 437: :Your watering-down attempt was removed. There's really nothing to discuss here. [[User:Zaathras\|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras\|talk]]) 02:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC) ::My edits were removed citing that the current wording around these things are "by consensus", however I note that the Consensus section of this page (number 48) clearly states "'''There is no consensus on specific wording'''". There is also nothing in the Consensus section about the wording around the Capitol riots, so the basis of this revision is completely unfounded. ::I am challenging this removal and plan on reinstating the edits. It's not watering down - my edits contain '''more''' specific information than the previous version. By contrast, it's watering down to use simplified language without context ~~to claim "they" attacked~~as the ~~Capitol~~article ~~when this is misrepresentative a massive sample size of those in~~currently ~~attendance~~does, ~~and~~such ~~also~~as ~~fails~~failing to clarify that Trump denounced the protests or initiated the vaccine rollout '''even though ~~it's~~these things are later mentioned in the body'''. ::Sorry, but none of the grounds of your comments or those of the revision have any logical basis at all. Feel free to add your input but claiming "there is nothing to discuss" is neither productive nor helpful. [[User:Domiy\|Domiy]] ([[User talk:Domiy\|talk]]) 03:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC) '''UPDATE''' - the removal of my edits is also a brech of rule 43 cited in the Consensus section.

Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions