This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics 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.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
When I took a look at this page's edit history, I noticed that a lot of revisions (and each of their edit summaries) were deleted, and the explanation given for doing that was just the word "unnecessary". If it was because grossly offensive or copyright-infringing content was included within the content added by Howardcorn33 and removed by Syawwwish, then that would explain why the revisions had to be deleted.
But that doesn't explain why the edit summaries had to be removed too. If that many of them really were problematic enough to justify removal, both editors could have had received complaints about their edit summaries on their respective talk pages. As a matter of fact, Syawwwish did receive a message on their talk page because of their contributions to this article, but it was from Daniel Quinlan expressing suspicion that Syawwwish might have a conflict of interest.[a] However, as I haven't found anything on Howard's talk page regarding their contributions to this article, the message on Syawwwish's talk page doesn't really help me understand why some of Howard's revisions had been deleted.[b]
^Seemingly promotional revisions and edit summaries are generally supposed to be left visible unless they meet one of the actual redaction criteria, such as exposing private contact information, in which case oversight may be necessary.
^I wonder if it's because Howard was the one who put seemingly promotional content in the article and Syawwwish received the conflict-of-interest message by mistake.
If it was because a lot of those edits were to one or more sections with grossly problematic titles (thus their edit summaries would've been stained by default), then that means Howard was still responsible for adding problematic content in the first place, so it would still make sense to expect them to have been reprimanded for doing that. However, even if the content was that bad, note that those edits had been made 8 months ago, so there'd be no sense in bothering them now.
However, that might not account for the edit summary associated with the +609 revision, so if it wasn't grossly problematic, then a better explanation would be that Quinlan had been in such a hurry to hide 2-week-old problematic content that they ended up redacting all of the edit summaries along with each revision in a frenzied (yet apparently successful) effort to make it unviewable as soon as it was spotted. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The initial revision deletion was a single action across multiple versions, but since a more surgical approach was possible, I went ahead and restored most of the edit summaries. The conflict of interest notice was placed on the correct user talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
