User talk:24.168.108.195
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The people banning this user have no political agenda. The "simple math" does not give us a factual statement, but rather an opinion. The user's personal interactions with Fossella staffers is not a basis for an edit.
Unblock. The people banning me have a political agenda. The material deleted is factual. Although Staten Island has the highest per capita income of any of NYC's 5 boroughs, it achieves that status by having the smallest concentration of poor people in the Big Apple. It actually has the smallest pct of people with incomes large enough to truly benefit from Bush's tax cuts. Generally, people residing in urban areas (This is not always true for rural areas, hence the red state-blue state divide), other than those in extremely rarified tax brackets generally receive more value from government spending than saving from tax cuts. Its simple math.
Regarding bus service issues, service did not materially improve until 2001 and I was personally involved in fighting for its improvement from 1994-2001. I approached Fossella representatives at public transit hearings when Vito was my councilman and they blew off requests to work towards extending service on the x17 which stopped at 7 PM at that time. Fossella ignored this during his council tenure. This is not a partisan rant by the way. Many Republicans including several that represented districts other than mine went to bat for me concerning this.
About the Seawall, even Fossella's own press release, which I had originally linked to in my version of this listing at one point, states in the fine print hat he did not really secure the funding he did. Harrison, when Chairman of Community Board 10, approached Fossella about the seawall erosion and was ignored until it broke down to the extent that they had to close down the adjacent bike path. After he finally acted, he took credit out of proportion with the sum of the funds actually secured. I wouldn't be surprised if Fossella's dissing is one of the factors motivating Harrison to challenge him.
Frank Baraboro was nearly invisible, as were all his other opponents with the exception of Eric Vitiliano. Don't believe me, Google Barbaro and check individual media outlet databases. His media coverage outside of the Staten Island Advance (which a substantial portion of Staten Islanders, particularly those commuting to Manhattan, where its not available, don't read) and some Brooklyn weeklies was limited to a piece in the New Yorker, written by a friend of a friend of his (And Very Few Staten Islanders read that magazine) and an appearance on one of Air America's lesser radio shows. He did not do mailings and there was little signage. There was no way to know before Election Day that he was running against Fossella if you were not a democratic activist or friends or family with one and didn't read the Advance. Harrison on the other hand already has been profiled twice on NY1 CABLE (There's a Wikipedia listing if you’re not familiar with the Network, which is Time Warner's application of the CNN concept of 24 hour TV news applied to New York City only. NY1's ratings typically exceed those of network affiliate newscasts in the five boroughs). The Daily News has covered him and is doing an expose on Fossella misuse of both campaign funds and tax payer money (visit the Daily News website). If I'm banned these infractions which may or may not lead to his downfall will never make it to Wikipedia, when editors insist on reverting to so called pre-vandalism versions, whose content lifted mostly from an older version Fossella web sites. Harrison also has generated more coverage in the Advance and Brooklyn media.
In United States House elections, 2006 listing, the removal of New York's 13th district as a competitive race was a partisan Republican act. And for the record the port security comments were not mine. The Daily News comment however is true. Vist the website www.nydailynews.com for information about the Fossella scandal which has been covered by the NY Times and NY1 as well. The scandal alone will make this a race.
Fossella won by 33,000 votes in 2004, a presidential election year. Historically, voter turnout has been 40 percent greater in election years. This means all things being equal (and they are probably not, because Democratic canddiates will probably get a boost from Bush's low poll numbers if they don't rebound by November)the margin of victory shrinks to 20,000 in a district with 500,000 adults 18+ (granted most don't vote and not even registered. The Democrats, despite Staten Islands' reputation of being a Republican stronghold, technically out number Republicans in registration in Staten Island and District wide. However many of those Dems are Democrats in Name Only (Dinos) who maintain Democratic registration to vote in primaries in citywide races that often don't field a Republican challanger.
Despite still winning by close to a very comforatable 20 percent in 2004, Fossella's vote margin advantage in the context of the size of the district was relatively small. Factior in that margin shrinking because of a light turnout, voter dissatifaction with the president and a scandal that has hit local media and may hit national media, you have a competitive race. this should be restored minus the port comments, which I didn't make.
The so called editors offense to my postings on the other hand are based on political bias. The last person to dub my honest reporting as vandalism says he's a political conservative. He says despite this he's also a Democrat, but I think he just says that so he can leave PR pieces on Republicans as articles.
OKAY seriously. Someone is going to ban you from Wikipedia eventually. Why don't you just cool it?
You have been blocked for vandalism for a period of time. To contest this block, add the text
{{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism.
You have been blocked for vandalism for one month. To contest this block, add the text
{{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism.
LEAVE VITO ALONE!!!!!11one
[edit] Warnings regarding Vito Fossella edits
(1) You inserted the following text, again, after I removed it: Attempting to run away from national Republican and Bush unpopularity Fossella has attempted to re-position himself as an independent fighter despite near fidelity to his party's agenda.
As I've said several times, in both edit summaries and on the talk page of the article, negative text MUST be sourced. "Attempting to run away" is negative text. "attempted ... despite" is also negative, implying either deceit or hypocrisy.
You MUST comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. That includes NOT writing negative sentences even when the truth seems OBVIOUS to you UNLESS you provide a source. Wikipedia articles are intended to let the reader judge, from the facts, what the implications of the facts actually are. If you want to put a sourced statistic in the section that shows "fidelity" to "his party's agenda", fine. If you want to quote a reputable political pundit as saying what you just said, fine. But using your own words, no matter how obvious you think your point is, is UNACCEPTABLE if those words are negative. If you can't accept that, start a blog or write letters to the editor or go somewhere else, because wikipedia isn't the right place for you.
If you continue to insert negative unsourced text, I will report you for vandalism.
NOTE: it should be obvious from the material I've inserted that I'm not exactly pro-Fossella. Think about that. I'm not trying to censor you - I'm trying to make this a really good article, as wikipedia defines it - factual, objective, let-the-reader decide. What you're trying to do is insert "Fossella is a inept, corrupt, right-wing politician who everyone should vote against" into the article as many times as you can. (Yes, your text is slightly more subtly, but not that much more - another editor referred to it as "political graffitti", and I've come to realize why).
I don't think what you are adding actually helps Harrison - it just makes wikipedia look like a campaign site, rather than a neutral encyclopedia. Please think about that, too. When an article is obviously biased, or badly written (or both), people stop reading. When an article is well-sourced, well-written, and simply presents the facts, the reader has a lot more trust in it - and that leads to a consideration of the facts. In short, what you've been doing may be well-intended, but the approach is both unacceptable (per wikipedia standards) and politically ineffective. John Broughton 20:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- (2) I have put (and you have removed) "citation needed" tags into several sections in the article. I put those tags in the article, rather than removing content, because I don't want to be accused of censoring you, and because those tags give other editors the chance to help out (by finding sources). REMOVING THOSE TAGS IS VANDALISM, unless you actually provide a source/citation. I am going to put the tags back. LEAVE THEM THERE unless you provide a source.
- If you remove the tags and still leave the text without a source, I will report you for vandalism. John Broughton 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] United States House elections, 2006
You removed the rating for the New York 13th Congressional race which involves Fossella. Don't remove sourced, relevant information to an article that is vandalism.--Getaway 22:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Please stop. If you continue to blank information like you did here: [1], you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
- Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. As you did here: [2]--Getaway 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop your vandalism. You did it again here: [3] >
You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.
- Please stop your vandalism. You did it again here: [3] >
-
- We hope that you will become a legitimate editor. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.--Getaway 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Reinstating the CQ ratings is NPOV vandalism as far as I'm concerned and I'll report you for vandalism if you continue to insist that this is the CQ guide to 2006 house races. There was no consensus for their inclusion without explanation of how they arrived at their individual district picks. Including them as gospel in this section is a relatively recent addition.
- I'd be willing to accept heir assessment if you can show how they counter the facts about this race I mention in the discussion session of the House piece.--24.168.108.195 05:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Its not up to you to accept the assessment. CQ has made a decision and the editor here at Wikipedia have decided to list that assessment. It is not up to you to over-rule the widely accepted concensus of the other editors. And your decisions to repeatedly remove the CQ rating is now vandalism. You have done this at least five times, there might be more.--Getaway 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia not Cook or CQ. Although objective they offer no support for their race assessment. Without suport that don't meet Wikipedia criteria.
I will stop removing the CQ assessment when you show me CQ countering the following facts that support NY 13 being much more competititve than CQ says it is.
1. Fossella is scandal ridden, with his campaign finance violations be covered by The Staten Island Advance, NY Daily News, New York Times, NY1 (NYC 24 hour cable news station)MSNBC's the Most and CNN.com
2. The Staten Island Republican party is broken into 2 factions; Fossella and his supporters and the Molinari/Molinaro wing (although borough president James Molinaro is technically a not a Republican, but a conservative). Although Guy Molinari is a former Fossella mentor and Vito replaced his daughter in this Congressional seat, the two now hate each other's guts. The two factions run rival candidates in primaries such as Marchi's vacant state Senate seat and Molinari was rumored to have been the Daily News's Deep Throat for his travel related scandal.
The animosity between the two camps has risen to the point where members of the rival faction publicly stated that they wouldn't support Fossella this November in the Staten Island Advance letters to the editor section.
3. Fossella took a private poll and refuses to release its results. If the results weren't much closer than expected he'd release the poll.
4. Fossella won by 33,000 votes in 2004, a presidential election year. District voter turn out is typically 40 percent greater in presidential election years. This means expected turnout in non-presidential 2006 should be 40 percent lower. All things being equal (and my next point will explain why they're not)Fossella's margin is reduced 40 percent to 20,000, not a large amount in a district with 500,000 adults 18+ (granted only about 70 percent were registered as of 2005).
5. Public dissatisfaction with Bush and Iraq has helped Democratic candidates nationwide, so the trend is Democratic.24.168.108.195 05:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Three revert rule warning
If you revert the edits of another editor on the US House elections, 2006 article you will be in violation of Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule. Violation of the rule may result in a block from editing on Wikipedia for up to 24 hours. Repeated violation may result in a permanent ban. Please respect the edits of other editors and discuss controversial edits on the talk page to build consensus among your fellow editors. --Bobblehead 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule should not apply because I'm correcting what I perceive as vandalism. The CQ. Sabato and Cook rating should be removed from every race because they do not offer support for their assessments. It doesn't matter that their race handicapping is allegedly unbiased. Its mere opinion without even justification for such.24.168.108.195 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure how you can consider it vandalism. I've added a reference link to United States House elections, 2006 which shows that this is indeed the CQPolitics.com rating. Enough editors have reverted you now that it is highly advisable that you desist or you will very likely be blocked soon. --StuffOfInterest 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
