« first day (1285 days earlier)   

10:48 AM
@Sklivvz a wrong but not deleted answer
Well, and now you've deleted it (at least heavily edited/censored).
 
11:05 AM
@ChrisW it's still wrong and not deleted
of course IMO, that is
 
@Sklivvz You deleted most of it.
I thought that "weighing the evidence" was supposed to be the readers' job.
 
I've deleted a bunch of links to blogs and quotes from personal opinions. Those parts are not simply wrong.
 
 
2 hours later…
1:07 PM
You censored the answer
What made those references not meet our standard? Being denialist?
If an answer intends to establish that X is somebody's opinion, how can it do so without linking to that opinion
And links to blogs are no longer allowed in answers?
I rolled it back
The standard you used was "is this material denialist", which is content based deletion
 
1:26 PM
@Articuno let's discuss it first.
The purpose of edits is to improve answers. With your rollback you've added in: links to potentially dangerous health advice; irrelevant opinions which are not evidence.
Does it make the answer better?
It had 50+ comments and it's at -14, and you want to revert to it - please justify this with a proper reason. "A mod is censoring it" is not a reason.
As a user I've improved it. As a mod I've put it into a state where it's possibly not a source of long diatribes as it was.
The version you say is "censored" is still available to the public in the revision history. However I see no reason for you to try and prevent me from doing edits. Any user can do that.
 
Then I quit
 
?
 
What?
 
there's a clearly bad answer, I've tried to improve it. what's wrong with it?
 
That was not the reason you cited
You said deletion was because the material was denialist
And the only reason that is an improvement (in your eyes) is its incorrectness and the consequences of those beliefs
 
1:36 PM
"I've deleted a bunch of links to blogs and quotes from personal opinions."
 
Yeah, because they were denialist
Look at the edit summary
 
no, because they are opinions
 
Look at how you equate unreputable with denialist in the commeny
Comment
So how can an answer establish that something is someone's opinion without reference to that opinion?
 
the question is not about opinions
in any case: if you have any idea on how to improve that answer, I'm all ears.
 
So now its the "not answering the question" standard
First it was because they were denialist then it was because it was an improvement then it was because they were opinions and now its because it didn't answer the question
 
1:39 PM
ok, whatever. It's a bad answer by all standards. I've tried to improve it. You didn't like my edit.
 
That is correct
 
How is reverting the answer making it better?
 
Its making the site better
By not ever relying on content based deletion
 
Edits are part of the system
 
Yes they are
 
1:42 PM
Why do you think we have edits?
Only to add stuff?
 
Also to delete stuff. To reword. To clarify. To copy edit. Not to delete stuff because it says a particular thing
To maintain standards not particular points of view
You know all of this though
 
How is the point of view of the answer changed?
I've left the conclusion as it was
Most of the OP original copy.
 
It omits content that was material to the former answer
Conclusions are not the only material part of an answer
 
that's not an answer
 
Just because you don't understand that
Doesn't make it not anaswer
Answer
 
1:45 PM
I didn't say that.
 
Sorry leaving
 
> As a user I've improved it.
IMO it's clearly not an edit that the 'original author' of the answer would approve of.
IMO edits are supposed to be cooperative.
 
IMO answers are supposed to be improved so they don't sink to -14 and generate 50 comments.
the OP is evidently not cooperative
It's one thing if the OP complains and reverts. I can engage them in a constructive chat
It's another thing to simply revert an edit screaming censorship by another user.
 
My previous experience suggests that your 'constructive chat' means 'telling them that you're right'.
 
A constructive chat would simply mean asking them not to point to blogs but to evidence, or to at least contextualize the fact that they are not evidence per se.
It has been asked of the OP over and over in the comments.
Maybe in chat it would go better, I don't know. at least I'm trying...
 

« first day (1285 days earlier)