User talk:Insektenrueckgang

Hello!--Insektenrueckgang (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Rachel Dolezal has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Rachel Dolezal was changed by Insektenrueckgang (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.903788 on 2018-12-25T00:43:58+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this bot is wrong! This article is all about her misdeeds. That is not a valid biographical article. Golden rule? --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is humorous. The Golden Rule, should of course apply to bots, although I have to say, Cluebot does usually admit when it's wrong. Edaham (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dolezal

I'm writing to inform you that your edits adding a cleanup template at Rachel Dolezal have been removed because the reason you described in the template is not a valid reason for removal of content from a page. Furthermore, this account seems to be a single purpose account, these accounts are expected to contribute neutrally and removing content because a person has kept a private lifestyle is editing with a motive. If you have any questions you can leave a message here or on my talk page. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a clean-up sign is not a removal of content. How do you know that this is a single purpose account? Read the German Wikipedia and you will find that I started with another issue and became aware of this article only by chance. --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision on Rachel Dolezal

The New York Post states that "she compares her travails to slavery" in her book.

This is fine. The issue was of attribution, as using a negative descriptor (adjective) in an editorial voice makes it seem like the encyclopedia has a point of view regarding a subject. We like to sound neutral when talking about any subject. For example we's say, the porridge was hot; Goldilocks "thought the hot porridge was nasty"^[1], but never hot porridge is nasty etc.

Thanks for collaborating and working together.

Edaham (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]