Talk:Adirondack Trust Company
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recent edits
editRegarding the discriminatory practices section, how do we achieve a neutral and balanced tone so it doesn’t sound like someone from either side of the ongoing dispute wrote it? the edit history reflects that a business relationship went sour but there doesn’t seem to be a conclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobbled thoroughbred (talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
We should not be using primary sources to create a section on a controversy. If it is WP:DUE there will be secondary sources that we can summarize. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC) The section that keeps being readded is a direct copy/paste of the primary source[1], which is a settlement agreement. We should not be copy/pasting from a source, especially a primary source like a settlement agreement. If the settlement was not covered in reliable secondary sources then it is not due. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Hudsonmohawk, you can't just copy and paste paragraphs from a primary source into an article. Please discuss rather than reverting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
There have been other citations added, since the topic was well covered by the major regional newspapers. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- That should have been what the addition was based on originally. If you need to work out prose and citation you can click the Sandbox link in the top navigation bar, which gives you a work space. At no point should text be copy/pasted wholesale from primary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- You acted in bad faith with your vandalism report and page deletion report amidst an ongoing page update. You are an overzealous editor who knowingly disrupts ongoing work rather than offer constructive input to that ongoing work or waiting for that ongoing work to be complete before being disruptive. I noticed you cleaned up your talk page. However, it should be noted that I am not the only one having issues working on pages with your non collaborative approach. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, sorry for my mistake labeling the edits as vandalism. As for my talk page, I didn't "clean it," I archived threads. You can see all the old threads through the archive links on my talk page. Clearly you've assumed the worst about me, so at this point I bid you happy editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- You acted in bad faith with your vandalism report and page deletion report amidst an ongoing page update. You are an overzealous editor who knowingly disrupts ongoing work rather than offer constructive input to that ongoing work or waiting for that ongoing work to be complete before being disruptive. I noticed you cleaned up your talk page. However, it should be noted that I am not the only one having issues working on pages with your non collaborative approach. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)