- Apparently any answer other than "yes" means that Kingsif will insinuate you are trying to benefit child predators. – notwally (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My replies to people contribute to discussion, and do not do what you suggest - either in intention or result. If you would like to contribute to discussion instead of stalking my (and only my) comments to cast aspersions, you are welcome to do so. But you haven't been productive at all and at this point have a clearly disruptive single-minded purpose. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your replies are far more bad faith insinuations and bludgeoning rather than contributing to any meaningful discussion. Considering you still haven't striken your baseless accusations of sock puppetry, you probably should actually read WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm responding to your actual words on this discussion thread. – notwally (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Notwally: My replies aren't bad faith or containing insinuations, or bludgeoning (content-wise). I encourage you to look at them with a more open mind, because I think after admittedly a dubious first comment of mine, you made a bad faith assumption and are seeing everything I do through that lens. I'd hope after seeing it result in a pleasant discussion, you would revert to AGF'ing me. But let's try and reach that now. To take this latest one (because I can see it in the edit window) as an example, a user has proposed a certain wording. We'll ignore the fact a different user also responded before me with an opinion on it, and you haven't taken issue with them. I replied with an opinion about the phrasing suggestion, an opinion based in editing practice. Not personal views of mine, not assumptions of the personal views of the other user. I mentioned what kind of phrasing I think is necessary, how phrasing might appear to readers, and how inclusion might encourage editing that could become disruptive. All of these things are valid, article-content-based opinions, as part of legitimate discussion on improving article content. It is all written as having an opinion on a content phrasing suggestion, and makes no insinuations about the user who proposed the wording. My edits have been congenial to coming to consensus and solutions for article content.
As for the mention of the SPI notice at your talkpage - look, my base was that. I assume you're not a sock if you're not banned, and I apologise both for bringing up something irrelevant, and perpetuating what was presumably a false report. I'll strike my comment and apologise if I can find it. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and bluntly, it's not even a close call. Mind you, as others have noted above, it's not going to make or break the article whether this aspect of the subject's notability is mentioned in the first or the second sentence of the lead. But it's also an easy read from policy and the sources: virtually every source cited in this article mentions the conviction and reputation relating to the assault of the child. In fact, most of them mention it directly or obliquely in their titles. It is clearly an inseparable element of the coverage of his sports career, if not also independently the single biggest element of his notability. Even as he is on the verge of making his highest-level appearances of his career to date, the narrative in the sources is almost entirely about the controversy regarding the appropriateness of his selection for said events, given the nature of his crimes. SnowRise let's rap 05:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|