Talk:Devin Durrant

message: This is what I shared on the BLP noticeboard page, in response to the recent IP user's concerns posted there. "It's not just the length, though as my edit summaries have noted, I do think there is undue weight and length to what has been included.  But it is also related to an apparently new, good faith, but inexperienced editor including content.  The edits typically lack WP style, including use and format of citations, lack of npov, personal commentary or description of things that could/should be linked, etc.  Given the multiple IP addresses the user has edited from, hard to address the topic other than in the use of edit summaries, and trying avoid edit warring." ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the general diagnosis, but might it also be useful to request temporary semi-protection at some point? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, I've reported this user for edit warring here. I've also stuck a notice about this on the IP's BLP noticeboard section. Marianna251TALK 21:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content/details added 

message: Can I get some feedback on the inclusion of this opinion sentence: "Some[quantify] church members felt that this rendered Durrant's sermon to be nothing more than an infomercial." If that opinion line is there, then it also needs to include other comments, such as that some church members had no problem with it and were supportive. Some members were asking where they could purchase "ponderize" products after the website was closed. I don't think either should be included, but wanted to get feedback before removing that specific sentence. I feel the next sentence that references the social media backlash is sufficient and has reference.  101heather (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the sentence now. 101heather (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your intentions are admirable, but it takes more than a couple of days for some editors (me, for example) to see topics like this. The unilateral removal of this sentence is uncalled for. I understand your concerns, and we can certainly address them and edit this to make it better, but I don't think a blanket removal is the answer here. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion (ha) it's far better to remove something slanderous that can be put back in once a consensus is reached that it should be there, rather than have it remain while waiting to see if someone will come along to have an opinion about it.101heather (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that the term "infomercial" is not in the article referenced, nor is it a part of any of the 40 comments on that article. So "some" refers to what? The opinion of the author of the WP paragraph? 101heather (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text: The sentence strikes me as WP:WEASEL-ish. I've boldly removed it, and have slightly rewritten the passage to make it a little more concise, trimming it from three sentences explaining what "ponderize" means to one. ~Awilley (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I like what you did and how the page looks overall now. I learned a new word too! 101heather (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion Removal