Talk:Nadine Strossen

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Women's History This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nadine Strossen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819062644/http://www.ffeusa.org/html/mission/index.html to http://www.ffeusa.org/html/mission/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason to remove some of the information so it was re-supplied. Summerdays1 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian H is not right with these edits. They insist on reversing my editing. I don't know why wholesale reversals are appropriate, oh wait, they aren't. Summerdays1 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They included an edit summary, did you address it? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They, Guardian H, are not limiting bad editing to this article. Do you see how they continue to remove facts and sentences? It appears they don't want certain things published. Very little has to do with "the lede". Summerdays1 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main focus of this talk page is Nadine Strossen though. Although it is reasonable to mention relevant problems in other pages, you did not answer the question I have. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

refactored from User talk:Thinker78) May I point out that you have "thinker" in your name? It is not cerebral to look at the editing differences. That editor is taking out specific facts about Nadine Strossen and her family. I guess it is less than 8 things; are you wantng a list? Summerdays1 (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you have been in Wikipedia only for a couple of months so you may not be familiar with relevant guidance.

According to the

consensus

policy,

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making, and is marked by addressing editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals... Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Per

Achieving consensus through editing

,

Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(chiming in after declining 3O filing on the basis of no discussion existing at the time the filing was posted) Regarding the first part of your comment, I recommend that you review

WP:NPA and consider striking it as a show of good-faith. Please focus on content, not contributors. DonIago (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]