Hi Politijay! I'm so glad you decided to volunteer your time to the encyclopedia. Everyone is welcome here and I hope you enjoy your time spent editing. If you need any assistance, don't hesitate to contact me. You can also seek assistance at the Teahouse. Buster Seven Talk 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits to the article for Stephen M. Sweeney have removed significant portions of sourced content. The material added to the article leans towards promotional puffery. Please leave the sourced material in the article and ensure that any content is added in a neutral tone. Alansohn ( talk) 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Adding blatantly promotional content such as Sweeney being "A tireless advocate for individuals with developmental disabilities..." (among many other such breatless promotion) and removing material backed by reliable and verifiable sources takes an article that you deem to show significant bias against the subject and turns into a puff piece promoting the subject. Take the article as it was, leave the content there and add appropriate content to demonstrate some level of the
neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. Discussing specific changes here would be an excellent starting point to improving the article, rather than rewriting history.
Alansohn (
talk) 03:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, your version of this entry contains info that's almost three years old, and with no effort to update the information, it is either provided out of context or factually incorrect. I respect your interest in neutrality. My citations are also sourced from reliable sources (election info from the NJ Dept. of State rather than some unrecognized election compiler site which doesn't even provide vote tallies). If you're interested in neutrality, you should edit my version of the article to make it truly neutral -- not biased in my direction towards "puffery," as you say, or biased in your direction towards a take-down piece. My version of the entry represents the official biography as provided by his office, and contains enough citations to back things up. At the very least, at least all the information is up to date.
Politijay (
talk) 07:55, 29 August 2012
- The version that pre-existed your edits was not "my" version; it was the collective effort of multiple editors to write a biographical article about Sweeney. While It certainly had flaws, the version of the article that you created is very much "your" version of the article, written from a rather blatantly promotional perspective. Rather than pick which version is best (and the correct answer is probably neither) or cut the baby in half, I took the original version, inserted much of the content you added while trying to develop an integrated article, added sources where none had been included, toned down both puffery for Sweeney and wording that focused negative attention. I will continue editing the article working towards a comprehensive article that includes a full background written in a neutral point of view and I hope that you will do the same. Interestingly, the IP address who edited the article minutes before you did at 12.107.80.100 is owned by the State of New Jersey, which could make for an interesting analysis of who is editing the article. On that subject, your user ID and the nature of your edits raises issues that may involve
Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, which you should probably review.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I will go through and edit what's there. I will also remove anything that's cited to a broken link, as that, in my opinion, is not accurately cited reference. I will also remove anything I find objectionable that's not cited, and I hope that meets with your standards of neutrality. As for potential for conflicts of interest, I have made no attempt to disguise the fact that I work for the Senate President, but upon reviewing the COI policy, I recognize that I should have identified myself as such. I'm new to posting on Wikipedia, and my omission of my identity on the edit page was an honest mistake, not intended to mislead the Wiki-public. If you're insinuating that my goal was to intentionally mislead, I take great offense to that. However, the information in the original article, whether it was your posting or someone else's, was not current and in some cases factually incorrect. If the goal of Wikipedia is to provide an up-to-date, factually accurate encyclopedia of information, that goal was not served by the original article, and I do not believe it is currently being served by the amalgamated article that still has broken link citations and other non-cited assertions.
Politijay (
talk) 10:41, 29 August 2012
- Please understand that WP:COI policy covers situations were the connection between an editor and the subject of an article creates a potential conflict in allowing that editor to update the article in neutral fashion. As part of comprehensive coverage, Wikipedia biographies will include content that may be deemed to be either positive or negative, As such it becomes rather hard for someone who is Sweeney's spouse, child or employee (or any other close connection) to maintain the editorial distance and neutrality, even if the conflict is disclosed and even if there is every intention to inform and not mislead. Alansohn ( talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I will go through and edit what's there. I will also remove anything that's cited to a broken link, as that, in my opinion, is not accurately cited reference. I will also remove anything I find objectionable that's not cited, and I hope that meets with your standards of neutrality. As for potential for conflicts of interest, I have made no attempt to disguise the fact that I work for the Senate President, but upon reviewing the COI policy, I recognize that I should have identified myself as such. I'm new to posting on Wikipedia, and my omission of my identity on the edit page was an honest mistake, not intended to mislead the Wiki-public. If you're insinuating that my goal was to intentionally mislead, I take great offense to that. However, the information in the original article, whether it was your posting or someone else's, was not current and in some cases factually incorrect. If the goal of Wikipedia is to provide an up-to-date, factually accurate encyclopedia of information, that goal was not served by the original article, and I do not believe it is currently being served by the amalgamated article that still has broken link citations and other non-cited assertions.
Politijay (
talk) 10:41, 29 August 2012
- The version that pre-existed your edits was not "my" version; it was the collective effort of multiple editors to write a biographical article about Sweeney. While It certainly had flaws, the version of the article that you created is very much "your" version of the article, written from a rather blatantly promotional perspective. Rather than pick which version is best (and the correct answer is probably neither) or cut the baby in half, I took the original version, inserted much of the content you added while trying to develop an integrated article, added sources where none had been included, toned down both puffery for Sweeney and wording that focused negative attention. I will continue editing the article working towards a comprehensive article that includes a full background written in a neutral point of view and I hope that you will do the same. Interestingly, the IP address who edited the article minutes before you did at 12.107.80.100 is owned by the State of New Jersey, which could make for an interesting analysis of who is editing the article. On that subject, your user ID and the nature of your edits raises issues that may involve
Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, which you should probably review.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, your version of this entry contains info that's almost three years old, and with no effort to update the information, it is either provided out of context or factually incorrect. I respect your interest in neutrality. My citations are also sourced from reliable sources (election info from the NJ Dept. of State rather than some unrecognized election compiler site which doesn't even provide vote tallies). If you're interested in neutrality, you should edit my version of the article to make it truly neutral -- not biased in my direction towards "puffery," as you say, or biased in your direction towards a take-down piece. My version of the entry represents the official biography as provided by his office, and contains enough citations to back things up. At the very least, at least all the information is up to date.
Politijay (
talk) 07:55, 29 August 2012
- @ User:Politijay. You should consider self-identifying yourself as an editor with a possible conflict of interest. You could do so by adding something along the line of State of New Jersey Employee to your signature. Our reader is entitled to know who is editing the articles especially when the COI editors interest may sway the result. ``` Buster Seven Talk 23:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Webclient101. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Stephen M. Sweeney without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Webclient101 (
talk) 20:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
You may also want to review Wikipedia policy on edit warring which covers situations in which different editors are battling over inserting / removing content from articles. You are already past the two revert limit and any further such edits could result in a block that prevents you from editing either temporarily or permanently. Discussing these changes with me and other editors and reaching consensus on what should be retained, what needs to be improved and what should be removed before making changes will be extremely helpful to you and all involved. Alansohn ( talk) 20:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I extremely agree with Alansohn. You should really discuss with other editors and reach consensus on what should be removed and what needs to be improved. You don't want to be blocked on Wikipedia because of edit warring. -- Webclient101 ( talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies. My intent was to provide neutral, cited information, not to engage in edit warring. I believe the latest version of the article successfully does such, while updating certain references to free, currently accessible articles on the Internet, and removing content that did not contain appropriate sourcing. Politijay ( talk) 21:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Politijay! I'm so glad you decided to volunteer your time to the encyclopedia. Everyone is welcome here and I hope you enjoy your time spent editing. If you need any assistance, don't hesitate to contact me. You can also seek assistance at the Teahouse. Buster Seven Talk 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits to the article for Stephen M. Sweeney have removed significant portions of sourced content. The material added to the article leans towards promotional puffery. Please leave the sourced material in the article and ensure that any content is added in a neutral tone. Alansohn ( talk) 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Adding blatantly promotional content such as Sweeney being "A tireless advocate for individuals with developmental disabilities..." (among many other such breatless promotion) and removing material backed by reliable and verifiable sources takes an article that you deem to show significant bias against the subject and turns into a puff piece promoting the subject. Take the article as it was, leave the content there and add appropriate content to demonstrate some level of the
neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. Discussing specific changes here would be an excellent starting point to improving the article, rather than rewriting history.
Alansohn (
talk) 03:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, your version of this entry contains info that's almost three years old, and with no effort to update the information, it is either provided out of context or factually incorrect. I respect your interest in neutrality. My citations are also sourced from reliable sources (election info from the NJ Dept. of State rather than some unrecognized election compiler site which doesn't even provide vote tallies). If you're interested in neutrality, you should edit my version of the article to make it truly neutral -- not biased in my direction towards "puffery," as you say, or biased in your direction towards a take-down piece. My version of the entry represents the official biography as provided by his office, and contains enough citations to back things up. At the very least, at least all the information is up to date.
Politijay (
talk) 07:55, 29 August 2012
- The version that pre-existed your edits was not "my" version; it was the collective effort of multiple editors to write a biographical article about Sweeney. While It certainly had flaws, the version of the article that you created is very much "your" version of the article, written from a rather blatantly promotional perspective. Rather than pick which version is best (and the correct answer is probably neither) or cut the baby in half, I took the original version, inserted much of the content you added while trying to develop an integrated article, added sources where none had been included, toned down both puffery for Sweeney and wording that focused negative attention. I will continue editing the article working towards a comprehensive article that includes a full background written in a neutral point of view and I hope that you will do the same. Interestingly, the IP address who edited the article minutes before you did at 12.107.80.100 is owned by the State of New Jersey, which could make for an interesting analysis of who is editing the article. On that subject, your user ID and the nature of your edits raises issues that may involve
Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, which you should probably review.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I will go through and edit what's there. I will also remove anything that's cited to a broken link, as that, in my opinion, is not accurately cited reference. I will also remove anything I find objectionable that's not cited, and I hope that meets with your standards of neutrality. As for potential for conflicts of interest, I have made no attempt to disguise the fact that I work for the Senate President, but upon reviewing the COI policy, I recognize that I should have identified myself as such. I'm new to posting on Wikipedia, and my omission of my identity on the edit page was an honest mistake, not intended to mislead the Wiki-public. If you're insinuating that my goal was to intentionally mislead, I take great offense to that. However, the information in the original article, whether it was your posting or someone else's, was not current and in some cases factually incorrect. If the goal of Wikipedia is to provide an up-to-date, factually accurate encyclopedia of information, that goal was not served by the original article, and I do not believe it is currently being served by the amalgamated article that still has broken link citations and other non-cited assertions.
Politijay (
talk) 10:41, 29 August 2012
- Please understand that WP:COI policy covers situations were the connection between an editor and the subject of an article creates a potential conflict in allowing that editor to update the article in neutral fashion. As part of comprehensive coverage, Wikipedia biographies will include content that may be deemed to be either positive or negative, As such it becomes rather hard for someone who is Sweeney's spouse, child or employee (or any other close connection) to maintain the editorial distance and neutrality, even if the conflict is disclosed and even if there is every intention to inform and not mislead. Alansohn ( talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I will go through and edit what's there. I will also remove anything that's cited to a broken link, as that, in my opinion, is not accurately cited reference. I will also remove anything I find objectionable that's not cited, and I hope that meets with your standards of neutrality. As for potential for conflicts of interest, I have made no attempt to disguise the fact that I work for the Senate President, but upon reviewing the COI policy, I recognize that I should have identified myself as such. I'm new to posting on Wikipedia, and my omission of my identity on the edit page was an honest mistake, not intended to mislead the Wiki-public. If you're insinuating that my goal was to intentionally mislead, I take great offense to that. However, the information in the original article, whether it was your posting or someone else's, was not current and in some cases factually incorrect. If the goal of Wikipedia is to provide an up-to-date, factually accurate encyclopedia of information, that goal was not served by the original article, and I do not believe it is currently being served by the amalgamated article that still has broken link citations and other non-cited assertions.
Politijay (
talk) 10:41, 29 August 2012
- The version that pre-existed your edits was not "my" version; it was the collective effort of multiple editors to write a biographical article about Sweeney. While It certainly had flaws, the version of the article that you created is very much "your" version of the article, written from a rather blatantly promotional perspective. Rather than pick which version is best (and the correct answer is probably neither) or cut the baby in half, I took the original version, inserted much of the content you added while trying to develop an integrated article, added sources where none had been included, toned down both puffery for Sweeney and wording that focused negative attention. I will continue editing the article working towards a comprehensive article that includes a full background written in a neutral point of view and I hope that you will do the same. Interestingly, the IP address who edited the article minutes before you did at 12.107.80.100 is owned by the State of New Jersey, which could make for an interesting analysis of who is editing the article. On that subject, your user ID and the nature of your edits raises issues that may involve
Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, which you should probably review.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, your version of this entry contains info that's almost three years old, and with no effort to update the information, it is either provided out of context or factually incorrect. I respect your interest in neutrality. My citations are also sourced from reliable sources (election info from the NJ Dept. of State rather than some unrecognized election compiler site which doesn't even provide vote tallies). If you're interested in neutrality, you should edit my version of the article to make it truly neutral -- not biased in my direction towards "puffery," as you say, or biased in your direction towards a take-down piece. My version of the entry represents the official biography as provided by his office, and contains enough citations to back things up. At the very least, at least all the information is up to date.
Politijay (
talk) 07:55, 29 August 2012
- @ User:Politijay. You should consider self-identifying yourself as an editor with a possible conflict of interest. You could do so by adding something along the line of State of New Jersey Employee to your signature. Our reader is entitled to know who is editing the articles especially when the COI editors interest may sway the result. ``` Buster Seven Talk 23:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Webclient101. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Stephen M. Sweeney without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Webclient101 (
talk) 20:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
You may also want to review Wikipedia policy on edit warring which covers situations in which different editors are battling over inserting / removing content from articles. You are already past the two revert limit and any further such edits could result in a block that prevents you from editing either temporarily or permanently. Discussing these changes with me and other editors and reaching consensus on what should be retained, what needs to be improved and what should be removed before making changes will be extremely helpful to you and all involved. Alansohn ( talk) 20:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I extremely agree with Alansohn. You should really discuss with other editors and reach consensus on what should be removed and what needs to be improved. You don't want to be blocked on Wikipedia because of edit warring. -- Webclient101 ( talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies. My intent was to provide neutral, cited information, not to engage in edit warring. I believe the latest version of the article successfully does such, while updating certain references to free, currently accessible articles on the Internet, and removing content that did not contain appropriate sourcing. Politijay ( talk) 21:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)