Editorial disagreements should not be called vandalism, and you should not call someone a vandal just because they make an edit you disagree with. If you do so, you may run afoul of the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy; you'd be better off adhering to Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks instead!-- InaMaka ( talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I left a reply on the Hill talk page to discuss these matters further. I used the word "claim" in my original copy as one of the ways to attempt to impart neutrality. Was it my obligation to report on other issues related to the elections or just other opposing views on the issue at hand?
ProLifeDC ( talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you made a revision to the Bob Dold page regarding the Eagle Forum endorsement. Please join our discussion on the topic. Thank you. Cardinal91 ( talk) 02:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arbor832466: Please do not comment on my "motivations" at any other time in the future. You do not know what my motivations are AND your comments about my "motivation" can be construed as a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. Please focus your comments on improving articles. You do not comment at all on how you would improve the article about Stephene Moore all you did was inappropriate make wild claims about my motivation. Please stop.-- InaMaka ( talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Trying to create an archive here and I think I... broke it. Can somebody lend me a hand? Arbor832466 ( talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Billy Coyle, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Since this affects multiple pages, I'm not sure where to post it, so I'm going to put it here and put links on the talk pages of the affected articles. I've noticed that user [ [5]] has added some version of the following to 10+ articles about members of Congress who voted against the Affordable Health Care for America Act:
I'm not convinced that not signing a petition circulated by a member of the opposing party is notable, and adding seems to violate WP:UNDUE. Now, if a particular member had publicly advocated repeal and then did not sign the petition, that would be notable, but as far as I can tell, that is not the case here. Hundreds if not thousands of petitions are circulated around Congress every year -- why should this one be included in members' articles while all others are excluded?
Would love to reach a consensus on this. Thanks! Arbor832466 ( talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Allow me Thephalanx to explain, via rebuttal.
It is important to understand that a discharge petition is not mere petition - it is a rarely used legislative tool. The King petition, which happens to be bipartisan, is one of the most notable discharge petitions in recent memory. It is even featured in Wikipedia's page on discharge petitions. Clearly, this is not a garden variety petition.
This petition is bipartisan. Missouri Democrat Gene Taylor signed on in September. [2]
I agree, that would certainly be notable. Reps. Marshal [3] and McIntyre [4] are good examples of that behavior. However, it goes beyond that. The petition has played a prominent role shaping the news coverage surrounding the future of the new health care law. It seems perfectly reasonable to link that effort to those Members who opposed the law in March.
By now, I hope it is clear that this petition is neither a fringe petition, nor representative of a small minority of Congress. It has received bipartisan support and significant media coverage. In the world of discharge petitions, this one is an anomaly. The statement I have been including into various pages is innocuous and factual.
I think we should be able to come to an agreement on this. Looking forward to it. Thephalanx ( talk) 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, having not heard a viable reason why the Steve King petition should be mentioned in 20+ members' articles, I'm going to remove it per WP:Notability. If anyone can find independent sources covering a specific member's position on the repeal petition, feel free to re-add. In the absence of that, it does not belong. Thanks! Arbor832466 ( talk) 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
add your "personal analysis" to my page. -- Ak169808 ( talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC) K. Thanks
Why do you keep putting editing the Jim Renacci Page? First of all, what you are saying is very one sided so if you are going to post something, I would appreciate it if you got all of the facts before posting. I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I would be happy to discuss this further with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdogg654 ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you've been adding prod warning to Jerzeykydd's talk page. Just to let you know, that editor has been banned until November 3. See his talk page if you are curious. Thanks for prodding those articles, I have been meaning to do it.-- TM 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not comment on my motivations or who you believe I am "working for" as you did in this edit summary [7]. You do not know what my motivations are, and your comments can be construed as a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. Please focus your comments on improving articles. Have a great day!! Arbor832466 ( talk) 21:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith on your part, but...if a politician is only notable for an election, we do not delete his or her article. The article is merged into the election article, and the politician article is then redirected to the election article. I have now done this with the Scott Harper article. I consider any efforts to destroy the 'audit trail' of information to be prima facie evidence of partisanship, particularly when done in the month before an election. I suggest you change your other recommendations for similar deletions. Flatterworld ( talk)
InaMaka, you need to refrain from personal attacks [ [9]]. Thank you. Arbor832466 ( talk) 16:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Arbor832466: I noticed you deleted the reference to Critz' vote for adjournment because "adjournment is not a notable enough vote to get this much weight". Normally, I would agree with you an adjournment vote does not carry enough weight to be notable. However, this event was covered by every major national news media ranging from left to center to right and all over the blogosphere and internet (I could further document). Considering Critz' short tenure in office, it is perhaps the single most discussed vote he has taken and because of that significance I felt it extremely significant as a voting record. Although it is a bit awkwardly placed (perhaps it should go in its own "Significant Votes" section rather than position, it seems the way the page is now organized, it fits best there. It is with this rationale I have restored the reference to the adjournment vote. Reidwiki ( talk) 19:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
Arbor832466: Not being hugely familiar with the district's media sources, I don't know of specific Critz coverage. The PA GOP did issue a Press Release Oct 1st http://www.pagop.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=4754 attacking Critz specifically on the issue but I'd prefer a neutral citation for wikipedia. On the other spectrum, I came across an anonymous blogger at http://mark28.blogspot.com/ (CAUTION: THE BLOG DROPS F-BOMBS) whose Sept 30th entry "What Good Are They?" (a self-described "hardcore Democratic partisan" bagging the Blue Dogs) help provide anchoring that the issue evoked strong feelings across the spectrum. I agree with you the reference is lonely and needs some company; the only other major piece of legislation I can think of for the House Critz voted on was the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which had its final vote this past July. (Critz voted against http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll413.xml). What do you think? Reidwiki ( talk) 02:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
Arbor832466: I cleaned up the entire section to make it more concise and focusing on the most important votes by Critz. The references to the Small Buisness vote was to a Critz press release and violates WP:SOAP in allowing Critz to soapbox through wikipedia. The reference to bills introduced by Critz also violated WP:SOAP but also is information not relevant to Wikipedia as with the thousands of bills introduced into Congress, only bills that capture major national debate or passage should have any introduction credit mention in Wikipedia. I furthermore remove the old lines beginning "Critz's profile is very similar to that of his late boss..." not because I disagree factually but because they are uncited and such read as opinion. I think you will find the new edits quite...encyclopedic. Reidwiki ( talk) 03:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
Arbor832466: First, please, your efforts and edits are thoughtful and appreciated; it's nice to feel like we are providing checks and balances and at least I feel like working together to enhance WP. Many, but not all Members of Congress have a section on how they have voted on legislation (see Chaka_Fattah and Jim_Gerlach both have political sections). You will notice that I didn't leave the adjournment vote alone, but rather kept the 2 most debated/discussed votes across political spectrum Critz has had in his short time in office. I think maybe you feel a need to "fill it up" with stuff when I would counter filling it up would be WP:UNDUE. Leaving it in helps guide the reader to Critz's position on these 2 important issues. My feeling is as time goes on, the section could be filled up with other important votes. For example, perhaps Congress will tackle a major immigration bill or deal directly with tax cuts. Having a small section isn't a bad thing, but rather the appropriate thing. Furthermore, I think that doing WP:UNDUE on an entire section when it is weighted appropriately in accordance with Critz' time in office would discourage submitters from compiling research to add to WP even when it is only a small compilation. The only thing I am struggling with is the title "Notable Votes" which I am thinking to change back to "Political Positions" which seems to be more in uniform with other pages. Reidwiki ( talk) 06:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
Arbor832466: A BIG LOL on your "efficacy of Congress" comment. Personally, I don't feel like you've been harsh, but rather quite respectful. I'm glad we both took the time to explain our edits because it certainly made me think about different perspectives which is extremely important. We clearly have had some differences of opinion which isn't necessarily a bad thing at all and have both worked hard to keep the respect up while trying to keep this a good encyclopedia. Also found this on THOMAS which lists all the bills Congress has sponsored in the current 111th session: http://www.thomas.gov/home/ViewList.php?n=Member&c=111 Critz has sponsored 6 bills which strikes me as rather typical for a Congress member of such short tenure. Elsewhere THOMAS counts 6,265 total bills for the 111th session of Congress, so sponsoring a bill is rather in and of itself not a notable event. Reidwiki ( talk) 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
I responded to your question here: Response.-- InaMaka ( talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Arbor, I saw you had some input on previous Bob Dold discussion. Care to weigh in on the latest discussion over the residency controversy? I'd like to hear your thoughts on notability, relevance and documentation related to the residency matter especially in light of Public Figures. Cheers. Cardinal91 ( talk) 17:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Endorsements are certainly acceptable in candidate articles, as long as they're dated and footnoted to a reliable source, not simply the candidate's campaign site or such. The most reliable source is the person or group's own website. For instance, newspaper endorsements are footnoted to the specific editorial explaining the endorsement. Flatterworld ( talk)
(moved this over from my user page)
I hope that this is the correct way to contact you If not, please forgive me and tell the the correct way.
Again, thank you for your help. I did add the xkcd tag and also the Firefox tag to my talk site as well. Now I'm trying to figure out why the image which worked fine yesterday is failing today. There is definitely a learning curve. -- RedSunBlueSkies ( talk) 16:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thankee kindly! -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (born in Jackson)
Hi, InaMaka. Can you clarify for me what you meant by this edit summary? [10] Arbor832466 ( talk) 14:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Arbor832466. I notice that you restored material to the article
Frank Guinta after some section-blanking by an IP, User 76.19.249.241. Some of the material you restored was acceptable, but other sections were
poorly sourced, citing what appear to be blogs and political attack sites as references. These should never have been permitted into the article to begin with, and the editor was well within his or her rights to remove this material in accordance with Wikipedia's
policy on biographies of living people, in particular the section
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. I agree that the wholesale section-blanking was not appropriate,
possibly even
tendentious, but please be sure that you are not restoring
WP:BLP violations by wholesale reverting. It would have been better to review the IP editor's rationale and evaluate each section on its own merits rather than restoring the material in its entirety.
-- Rrburke (
talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey!
I notice you keep editing the the page Chris Gibson (New York Congressional candidate). You complain that a specific portion violates NPOV, which I don't see but since I wrote the most of the article I'm hardly unbiased on that front and I am more than open to criticism. However I'd appreciate if rather than simply blanking it (in a way that detracts from the articles quality) you would work with me to point out what you say is NPOV.
Thanks,
Theeagleman ( talk) 17:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
He is nonetheless likely to face a tough election where the incumbent has a considerable cash advantage and is widely seen as moderate within the district (a crucial factor in the Republican leaning district) despite a score of only 11 out of 100 from the American Conservative Union and having changed his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's polarizing health care legislation.
Hey Arbor832466. I copy and pasted the wrong link. It should have been * Profile from Fights for Jobs pro-business group. When I realized the error and went to fix it, the page locked me out. Can you add it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudanashi ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed it, way to be on top of the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudanashi ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The basic Wikipedia policy is to not repeat information verbatim in multiple articles, but to put it in the most relevant article and then include a 'summary style' statement and a link from related articles. In this case, the most relevant article is the election article(s). With polls being updated regularly, we don't want them to be out of sync and force readers to hunt for them all over the place. Most of the election articles have tables for poll results, which makes them easy to read as they all follow the same format. Flatterworld ( talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Because of the sudden surge in the past couple of days in deletes/redirects - with or without discussions but all without merges - I've requested a FREEZE on this (please read it) until after the election. Please check articles you're aware of, as they still display with a 'blue'link'. The deletes are being done by people I don't recognize being involved in any actual article work. Flatterworld ( talk) 15:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be editing the Dan Benishek article. I would like you to read WP:3RR and note that WP:SOCKPUPPETs should not be used to avoid 3RR. At this point I am making no accusations, just posting the same message on all editors' talk pages. Per WP:BRD, a controversial edit should be discussed on the talk page, not become subject to an WP:EDITWAR. I have notified the BLP noticeboard here and encourage you to join the conversation at Talk:Dan Benishek. Thank you, Mechanical digger ( talk) 10:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There was no need for you to accuse me of vandalism simply because I made an honest (and quite small) mistake. The mistake could have been corrected with a routine explanation and it could have been done so without an accusation of vandalism. There was nothing in my actions to suggest vandalism. Vandalism is the malicious altering of an item. A mistake is not necessarily malicious. So please stick to normal reasons for reverting edits without accusing people of vandalism right off the bat. I do not yet know how to sign these items so this will be unsigned but hopefully the system will pick it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.187.133 ( talk) 19:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have the right to delete unnecessary and false (accusing me of vandalism where none occurred) claims on my user page. Please do not attempt to by proxy reinstate them by "reminding" me that there is a permanent record. I am by no means an expert at this but I know that. Your "reminder" was a transparent attempt to re-state your opinion of vandalism on my user page where again no vandalism ever occurred, just an honest mistake. Please do not relist items on my page that I clearly wanted removed (and had the right to do so). Again I don;t yet know how to sign these but plan on learning soon. Again hopefully the system will take care of it.
InaMaka, some of your edit summaries (eg [13], [14], [15]) raise serious concerns about your ability to edit in a neutral manner, particularly shortly before an election. Please dial back the partisanship or consider a break from editing. Arbor832466 ( talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Gibson (New York politician). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Theeagleman ( talk) 18:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Courcelles 18:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Arbor8 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I maintain that my edits to Chris Gibson were a good faith attempt to quickly remedy a NPOV problem on the article belonging to a candidate who is up for election in less than 48 hours -- hence my acting more swiftly than I otherwise would have (although I also engaged in discussion on the Talk page). However, if it would make a difference I will refrain from editing the Chris Gibson article in the future. I would also point out, while still assuming good faith, that user Theeagleman who reported the 3RR has a history of exclusively making two kinds of edits, those that make Chris Gibson appear in a favorable light and those that make his opponent, Scott Murphy appear in a negative one. I look forward to your speedy reply. Thanks!
Decline reason:
Clear edit-war. Both of you are now blocked for it. That's a fantastic way to support your candidate by not being able to fix last minute issues. You have also proven why mere candidates should not have Wikipedia articles. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Editorial disagreements should not be called vandalism, and you should not call someone a vandal just because they make an edit you disagree with. If you do so, you may run afoul of the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy; you'd be better off adhering to Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks instead!-- InaMaka ( talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I left a reply on the Hill talk page to discuss these matters further. I used the word "claim" in my original copy as one of the ways to attempt to impart neutrality. Was it my obligation to report on other issues related to the elections or just other opposing views on the issue at hand?
ProLifeDC ( talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you made a revision to the Bob Dold page regarding the Eagle Forum endorsement. Please join our discussion on the topic. Thank you. Cardinal91 ( talk) 02:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arbor832466: Please do not comment on my "motivations" at any other time in the future. You do not know what my motivations are AND your comments about my "motivation" can be construed as a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. Please focus your comments on improving articles. You do not comment at all on how you would improve the article about Stephene Moore all you did was inappropriate make wild claims about my motivation. Please stop.-- InaMaka ( talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Trying to create an archive here and I think I... broke it. Can somebody lend me a hand? Arbor832466 ( talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Billy Coyle, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Since this affects multiple pages, I'm not sure where to post it, so I'm going to put it here and put links on the talk pages of the affected articles. I've noticed that user [ [5]] has added some version of the following to 10+ articles about members of Congress who voted against the Affordable Health Care for America Act:
I'm not convinced that not signing a petition circulated by a member of the opposing party is notable, and adding seems to violate WP:UNDUE. Now, if a particular member had publicly advocated repeal and then did not sign the petition, that would be notable, but as far as I can tell, that is not the case here. Hundreds if not thousands of petitions are circulated around Congress every year -- why should this one be included in members' articles while all others are excluded?
Would love to reach a consensus on this. Thanks! Arbor832466 ( talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Allow me Thephalanx to explain, via rebuttal.
It is important to understand that a discharge petition is not mere petition - it is a rarely used legislative tool. The King petition, which happens to be bipartisan, is one of the most notable discharge petitions in recent memory. It is even featured in Wikipedia's page on discharge petitions. Clearly, this is not a garden variety petition.
This petition is bipartisan. Missouri Democrat Gene Taylor signed on in September. [2]
I agree, that would certainly be notable. Reps. Marshal [3] and McIntyre [4] are good examples of that behavior. However, it goes beyond that. The petition has played a prominent role shaping the news coverage surrounding the future of the new health care law. It seems perfectly reasonable to link that effort to those Members who opposed the law in March.
By now, I hope it is clear that this petition is neither a fringe petition, nor representative of a small minority of Congress. It has received bipartisan support and significant media coverage. In the world of discharge petitions, this one is an anomaly. The statement I have been including into various pages is innocuous and factual.
I think we should be able to come to an agreement on this. Looking forward to it. Thephalanx ( talk) 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, having not heard a viable reason why the Steve King petition should be mentioned in 20+ members' articles, I'm going to remove it per WP:Notability. If anyone can find independent sources covering a specific member's position on the repeal petition, feel free to re-add. In the absence of that, it does not belong. Thanks! Arbor832466 ( talk) 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
add your "personal analysis" to my page. -- Ak169808 ( talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC) K. Thanks
Why do you keep putting editing the Jim Renacci Page? First of all, what you are saying is very one sided so if you are going to post something, I would appreciate it if you got all of the facts before posting. I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I would be happy to discuss this further with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdogg654 ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you've been adding prod warning to Jerzeykydd's talk page. Just to let you know, that editor has been banned until November 3. See his talk page if you are curious. Thanks for prodding those articles, I have been meaning to do it.-- TM 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not comment on my motivations or who you believe I am "working for" as you did in this edit summary [7]. You do not know what my motivations are, and your comments can be construed as a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. Please focus your comments on improving articles. Have a great day!! Arbor832466 ( talk) 21:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith on your part, but...if a politician is only notable for an election, we do not delete his or her article. The article is merged into the election article, and the politician article is then redirected to the election article. I have now done this with the Scott Harper article. I consider any efforts to destroy the 'audit trail' of information to be prima facie evidence of partisanship, particularly when done in the month before an election. I suggest you change your other recommendations for similar deletions. Flatterworld ( talk)
InaMaka, you need to refrain from personal attacks [ [9]]. Thank you. Arbor832466 ( talk) 16:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Arbor832466: I noticed you deleted the reference to Critz' vote for adjournment because "adjournment is not a notable enough vote to get this much weight". Normally, I would agree with you an adjournment vote does not carry enough weight to be notable. However, this event was covered by every major national news media ranging from left to center to right and all over the blogosphere and internet (I could further document). Considering Critz' short tenure in office, it is perhaps the single most discussed vote he has taken and because of that significance I felt it extremely significant as a voting record. Although it is a bit awkwardly placed (perhaps it should go in its own "Significant Votes" section rather than position, it seems the way the page is now organized, it fits best there. It is with this rationale I have restored the reference to the adjournment vote. Reidwiki ( talk) 19:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
Arbor832466: Not being hugely familiar with the district's media sources, I don't know of specific Critz coverage. The PA GOP did issue a Press Release Oct 1st http://www.pagop.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=4754 attacking Critz specifically on the issue but I'd prefer a neutral citation for wikipedia. On the other spectrum, I came across an anonymous blogger at http://mark28.blogspot.com/ (CAUTION: THE BLOG DROPS F-BOMBS) whose Sept 30th entry "What Good Are They?" (a self-described "hardcore Democratic partisan" bagging the Blue Dogs) help provide anchoring that the issue evoked strong feelings across the spectrum. I agree with you the reference is lonely and needs some company; the only other major piece of legislation I can think of for the House Critz voted on was the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which had its final vote this past July. (Critz voted against http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll413.xml). What do you think? Reidwiki ( talk) 02:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
Arbor832466: I cleaned up the entire section to make it more concise and focusing on the most important votes by Critz. The references to the Small Buisness vote was to a Critz press release and violates WP:SOAP in allowing Critz to soapbox through wikipedia. The reference to bills introduced by Critz also violated WP:SOAP but also is information not relevant to Wikipedia as with the thousands of bills introduced into Congress, only bills that capture major national debate or passage should have any introduction credit mention in Wikipedia. I furthermore remove the old lines beginning "Critz's profile is very similar to that of his late boss..." not because I disagree factually but because they are uncited and such read as opinion. I think you will find the new edits quite...encyclopedic. Reidwiki ( talk) 03:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
Arbor832466: First, please, your efforts and edits are thoughtful and appreciated; it's nice to feel like we are providing checks and balances and at least I feel like working together to enhance WP. Many, but not all Members of Congress have a section on how they have voted on legislation (see Chaka_Fattah and Jim_Gerlach both have political sections). You will notice that I didn't leave the adjournment vote alone, but rather kept the 2 most debated/discussed votes across political spectrum Critz has had in his short time in office. I think maybe you feel a need to "fill it up" with stuff when I would counter filling it up would be WP:UNDUE. Leaving it in helps guide the reader to Critz's position on these 2 important issues. My feeling is as time goes on, the section could be filled up with other important votes. For example, perhaps Congress will tackle a major immigration bill or deal directly with tax cuts. Having a small section isn't a bad thing, but rather the appropriate thing. Furthermore, I think that doing WP:UNDUE on an entire section when it is weighted appropriately in accordance with Critz' time in office would discourage submitters from compiling research to add to WP even when it is only a small compilation. The only thing I am struggling with is the title "Notable Votes" which I am thinking to change back to "Political Positions" which seems to be more in uniform with other pages. Reidwiki ( talk) 06:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
Arbor832466: A BIG LOL on your "efficacy of Congress" comment. Personally, I don't feel like you've been harsh, but rather quite respectful. I'm glad we both took the time to explain our edits because it certainly made me think about different perspectives which is extremely important. We clearly have had some differences of opinion which isn't necessarily a bad thing at all and have both worked hard to keep the respect up while trying to keep this a good encyclopedia. Also found this on THOMAS which lists all the bills Congress has sponsored in the current 111th session: http://www.thomas.gov/home/ViewList.php?n=Member&c=111 Critz has sponsored 6 bills which strikes me as rather typical for a Congress member of such short tenure. Elsewhere THOMAS counts 6,265 total bills for the 111th session of Congress, so sponsoring a bill is rather in and of itself not a notable event. Reidwiki ( talk) 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
I responded to your question here: Response.-- InaMaka ( talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Arbor, I saw you had some input on previous Bob Dold discussion. Care to weigh in on the latest discussion over the residency controversy? I'd like to hear your thoughts on notability, relevance and documentation related to the residency matter especially in light of Public Figures. Cheers. Cardinal91 ( talk) 17:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Endorsements are certainly acceptable in candidate articles, as long as they're dated and footnoted to a reliable source, not simply the candidate's campaign site or such. The most reliable source is the person or group's own website. For instance, newspaper endorsements are footnoted to the specific editorial explaining the endorsement. Flatterworld ( talk)
(moved this over from my user page)
I hope that this is the correct way to contact you If not, please forgive me and tell the the correct way.
Again, thank you for your help. I did add the xkcd tag and also the Firefox tag to my talk site as well. Now I'm trying to figure out why the image which worked fine yesterday is failing today. There is definitely a learning curve. -- RedSunBlueSkies ( talk) 16:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thankee kindly! -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (born in Jackson)
Hi, InaMaka. Can you clarify for me what you meant by this edit summary? [10] Arbor832466 ( talk) 14:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Arbor832466. I notice that you restored material to the article
Frank Guinta after some section-blanking by an IP, User 76.19.249.241. Some of the material you restored was acceptable, but other sections were
poorly sourced, citing what appear to be blogs and political attack sites as references. These should never have been permitted into the article to begin with, and the editor was well within his or her rights to remove this material in accordance with Wikipedia's
policy on biographies of living people, in particular the section
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. I agree that the wholesale section-blanking was not appropriate,
possibly even
tendentious, but please be sure that you are not restoring
WP:BLP violations by wholesale reverting. It would have been better to review the IP editor's rationale and evaluate each section on its own merits rather than restoring the material in its entirety.
-- Rrburke (
talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey!
I notice you keep editing the the page Chris Gibson (New York Congressional candidate). You complain that a specific portion violates NPOV, which I don't see but since I wrote the most of the article I'm hardly unbiased on that front and I am more than open to criticism. However I'd appreciate if rather than simply blanking it (in a way that detracts from the articles quality) you would work with me to point out what you say is NPOV.
Thanks,
Theeagleman ( talk) 17:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
He is nonetheless likely to face a tough election where the incumbent has a considerable cash advantage and is widely seen as moderate within the district (a crucial factor in the Republican leaning district) despite a score of only 11 out of 100 from the American Conservative Union and having changed his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's polarizing health care legislation.
Hey Arbor832466. I copy and pasted the wrong link. It should have been * Profile from Fights for Jobs pro-business group. When I realized the error and went to fix it, the page locked me out. Can you add it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudanashi ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed it, way to be on top of the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudanashi ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The basic Wikipedia policy is to not repeat information verbatim in multiple articles, but to put it in the most relevant article and then include a 'summary style' statement and a link from related articles. In this case, the most relevant article is the election article(s). With polls being updated regularly, we don't want them to be out of sync and force readers to hunt for them all over the place. Most of the election articles have tables for poll results, which makes them easy to read as they all follow the same format. Flatterworld ( talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Because of the sudden surge in the past couple of days in deletes/redirects - with or without discussions but all without merges - I've requested a FREEZE on this (please read it) until after the election. Please check articles you're aware of, as they still display with a 'blue'link'. The deletes are being done by people I don't recognize being involved in any actual article work. Flatterworld ( talk) 15:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be editing the Dan Benishek article. I would like you to read WP:3RR and note that WP:SOCKPUPPETs should not be used to avoid 3RR. At this point I am making no accusations, just posting the same message on all editors' talk pages. Per WP:BRD, a controversial edit should be discussed on the talk page, not become subject to an WP:EDITWAR. I have notified the BLP noticeboard here and encourage you to join the conversation at Talk:Dan Benishek. Thank you, Mechanical digger ( talk) 10:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There was no need for you to accuse me of vandalism simply because I made an honest (and quite small) mistake. The mistake could have been corrected with a routine explanation and it could have been done so without an accusation of vandalism. There was nothing in my actions to suggest vandalism. Vandalism is the malicious altering of an item. A mistake is not necessarily malicious. So please stick to normal reasons for reverting edits without accusing people of vandalism right off the bat. I do not yet know how to sign these items so this will be unsigned but hopefully the system will pick it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.187.133 ( talk) 19:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have the right to delete unnecessary and false (accusing me of vandalism where none occurred) claims on my user page. Please do not attempt to by proxy reinstate them by "reminding" me that there is a permanent record. I am by no means an expert at this but I know that. Your "reminder" was a transparent attempt to re-state your opinion of vandalism on my user page where again no vandalism ever occurred, just an honest mistake. Please do not relist items on my page that I clearly wanted removed (and had the right to do so). Again I don;t yet know how to sign these but plan on learning soon. Again hopefully the system will take care of it.
InaMaka, some of your edit summaries (eg [13], [14], [15]) raise serious concerns about your ability to edit in a neutral manner, particularly shortly before an election. Please dial back the partisanship or consider a break from editing. Arbor832466 ( talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Gibson (New York politician). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Theeagleman ( talk) 18:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Courcelles 18:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Arbor8 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I maintain that my edits to Chris Gibson were a good faith attempt to quickly remedy a NPOV problem on the article belonging to a candidate who is up for election in less than 48 hours -- hence my acting more swiftly than I otherwise would have (although I also engaged in discussion on the Talk page). However, if it would make a difference I will refrain from editing the Chris Gibson article in the future. I would also point out, while still assuming good faith, that user Theeagleman who reported the 3RR has a history of exclusively making two kinds of edits, those that make Chris Gibson appear in a favorable light and those that make his opponent, Scott Murphy appear in a negative one. I look forward to your speedy reply. Thanks!
Decline reason:
Clear edit-war. Both of you are now blocked for it. That's a fantastic way to support your candidate by not being able to fix last minute issues. You have also proven why mere candidates should not have Wikipedia articles. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.