Talk:Adau Mornyang

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Vandalism

PLease stop vandalism of this page Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Everdux help me there is somebody vandalising this pageAustralianblackbelt (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vandalism going on here. True Journalistic questions are addressing Adau's trial last March and guilty verdict in June. If you look at the page view history, those instances are why most people looked at her page. What is being added under Legal Trouble contains no hyperbole or fabrications that could be considered libelous.OverseerNetwork (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OverseerNetwork I had added this content but you deleted it and copied the news report word for word as well as made it a prominent part of the article. Your persistent changing and at one stage deleted three of the headings and left only LEGAL TROUBLES show your intent is defamation. Why did you delete most of the content and just left legal troubles. Just leave the article as is please stop trollingAustralianblackbelt (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OverseerNetwork Further more you have deleted what Adau had to say and that she was absolved of assaulting the air marshal. Your writing is one sided and attempt at deleting the rest of Adau's page is vandalismAustralianblackbelt (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australianblackbelt I can't believe you. I have not deleted anything until today, after you accused me of vandalism. And what I deleted was text that was in a dubious location that was better described elsewhere. I never, as you say, deleted three headings and left only the "Legal Trouble". And the text I inserted was not word for word from the reference yet you keep harping about it. I will, with journalistic integrity, contribute information about her arrest and trial. It is certainly not defamation, and certainly not vandalism.

Look, I understand you created this page because you are a big fan of hers. But you have to understand that you are not coming at this page with a Neutral Point of View. You are incredibly biased against any references to her that do not paint her in an amazing or positively biased light. This is Wikipedia, not a Public Relations company. You can see from the Page's history that views spiked whenever news of her trials reached the media. Thus, it is a significant addition to her page but you have always, for months, deleted anything contributed about it. You can see that in the revision history. Then you allowed some references of her arrest and trial to remain but you limited it to only playing the race card which is not relevant to the incident. You are obsessed about the fact she was absolved of attacking an air marshal. OK, but that's not the most newsworthy part of the story. What is relevant is that she was found guilty of assaulting an international flight attendant.

You should leave the editing of this part to people with Neutral Points of View. Just the facts. Not misdirections and dubious framing of the facts like what you've contributed.OverseerNetwork (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you try to delete her other content and highlight her legal troubles if you were not biased Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything about her other than text that was in the WRONG section. You had it under "Speak on Social Issues". She was not speaking on Social Issues, she was talking about her legal troubles. Thus it's under a "Legal Trouble" heading. Do you know what biased means?OverseerNetwork (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s right the in the edit history I will state the time you did it later. You tried to delete three subheadings, I know cause i had to add them back in to the article. You are the bias one deleted the racist part of the incident, and yes it’s an incident not legal troubles which most people have at some stage. Saying legal troubles is just another way to defame her and scare away potential clients. Who are you why are you trolling this page every day Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianblackbeltYou're the one who deleted the three subheadings, it's in the edit history [15:31, 8 July 2019‎ Australianblackbelt talk contribs‎ 6,062 bytes -3,270‎]. Press "Prev" and you can see YOU are the one who deleted the subheadings. And then you accuse ME of doing it? You are the troll. You ask me who am I? I am improving Adau's Wikipedia page with unbiased researched facts. Who are you? Her managing agent? Her brother? Who are you to hide the facts and laughably play the race card? Most people have legal trouble someday? Where are you from to make such an absurd statement? I'll agree to leave the heading as it is until she's sentenced. But then I'm calling it what it is and what you can see all over Wikipedia.OverseerNetwork (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the three headings back... the headlines say top Australian model yet that’s too positive so it’s taken out I see. Adau made headlines around the world for her Facebook feed on rap why make the whole article about the airline incident. Australianblackbelt (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added them back after you deleted them. You blamed me for deleting them when you were the one who did it.OverseerNetwork (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]