User talk:Anonymous Wikipedian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a placeholder for when I have time to write something smarmy and self-involved (and with appropriate pretty wiki-HTML).

[edit] Pete Sorenson

First, of all you are way off base. I am not a Sorenson supporter, in fact I personally think his candidacy is probably not going to be a successful. At this point am not SUPPORTING ANY CANDIDATE! NEITHER DO I WORK FOR ANY CANDIDATE! Read my profile and it will explain who I am. My question is who are you? Do you work for a campaign? This coming from someone who has 6 edits. [1]

Second of all, showing the fact that a poll is flawed is not POV. It is true that the poll DOES NOT take into account Pete Sorenson nor Ben Westlund.

Third, I have written numerous politcal profiles, including profiles of people I politically disagree with. Look at my user page and you will see a LONG list. If you read some of those you'd have ABSOULTELY no idea what political affilation I have.

I think you really need to think twice before you write something. Davidpdx 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

Thank you for your prompt response, David. I am anonymous for a reason, but I too, am not committed to supporting a particular candidate in the Oregon gubernatorial election. I certainly do not work for any campaign, and have no set preference at this time.

FYI, I did "think twice" before I wrote something, but a careful examination of the edits you have been making led me to the conclusion that you have a subconscious bias - which you have shown rather plainly right here in your response. The fact that the Rasmussen poll does not ask about the two candidates who, at present, have 2% support in the polls is meaningless. The poll also did not take into account the Libertarian Party of Oregon, whose candidate had 5% support last time. Why, then did you choose to point out Westlund, when he has less than half that? Pure newsworthiness?

Again, when a challenger to Kulongoski starts to show movement, it may be reasonable to question a poll that doesn't include them. But the top two contestents for the Democratic nomination are Kulongoski and Hill, and they are the ones who are being tested. (Ironically, Jim Hill - who has been showing some movement in the last month - is the only candidate WITHOUT a Wiki page.)

Even without your edits, Kulongoski's page isn't neutral. The implicit accusation "he's a bad campaigner" runs through it. That may well be true, but it needs external documentation, not unsupported assertions like: "Many of Kulongoski's supporters were disappointed with his campaign, feeling he did not adequately respond to Mannix's challenge." How many is "Many"? What percentage? Where's the reference? (etc, etc)

Anonymous Wikipedian 01:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, when responding to someone's message you should also put it on their talk page so that they see it. If I hadn't come back to your talk page, I wouldn't have seen the reply.

Second, I challange your assertion that my edits are bias. As I stated in my first response, you can look at my user page and see which articles I've edited. Some of those articles are about people I politically disagree with. I am usually very careful when editing and putting in references. I did not put in the line you referenced in the last paragraph of your response. Also it's worth noting, that it was not myself who first included the polling numbers in the Kulongoski article rather someone else. If you look at the history page, there are many people (without accounts) who contribute to that article.

Third, you yourself put in a speculative statement that the economic downturn had something to do with his approval rating. [2] This statement was inserted with (wait for it) NO SOURCE! And you are accusing me of bias? It is you that is showing a overt bias by taking out statements and putting in purly speculative ones.

Fourth, I actually voted for Kulongoski twice, once in the primary and once in the general election in 2002. In fact, I met him in 2003 in Salem and shook his hand. Overall I think he's a nice guy. However, as I have stated, I DO NOT HAVE A PREFERENCE IN THE ELECTION.

Fifth, regarding polling, it is worthy of mention that the poll does not include either Sorenson nor Westlund. All polls have some bias in them whether they are internal or external. While they may have polled low in the poll you posted (which is almost six months old), there is no indication how much support they have currently. Of course if there are no major polls which include them, how can you accurately say what there support is or isn't. Again, I don't support either of them. I'm not sure if your also referring to the statement I made about Multnomah County Central Democratic Committee, which I did put in a reference in terms of the questioning of their endorsement. Yet including this information could have been viewed by some as being pro-Kulongoski.

Sixth, I have been editing for almost a full year and have almost 1800 edits [3]. Most of my edits have been to articles about politics in Oregon. Never once have I had a complaint about my edits in these articles. The 2006 Gubernatorial article was not started by me, but you will see most of the contributions to the article have been done by me.

Seventh, I have been trying to get around to writing an article on Hill, but haven't had much time. Since I have changed jobs, I have not had as much time or energy to put into Wikipedia lately. I invite you to write an article about Hill. When I did research, I wasn't able to find a lot of information on him. I don't know if you've written a full article yet or not, but with research and writing it takes at least 3 to 4 hours to do. In terms of your assertion that the Kulongoski article is bias and needs to be rewritten and sourced, then do it. Likely I'll take a look at both the old and the new article and make notes if I think something should be put back into the article.

Eighth, if you want to get further, change your approach. If you had come to me in a diffrent way, I'd probably would have been more understanding. The way you approached was crass at best (I'm directly referring to the fact that you accused me of edits which I didn't make). On Wikipedia one of the central tenets is assuming good faith. While sometimes that is difficult, it is as much a part of the rules as NPOV. Davidpdx 11:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First, main reason I removed the Riley Research report is that it is somewhat outdated (I believe that it was done in October or November). Also the poll was an open poll, which was done when many candidates had not decided whether or not to enter the race. Several potential candidates included Vicki Walker and John Kitzhaber (there were more but I can't remember off the top of my head). The point is that you can not really base what a candidates support is, on a poll that was taken almost six months ago and included potential candidates that never formally entered the race.

My suggestion would be to put it at the bottom of the section in the 2006 Gubernatorial Race article which is where it would fit better. The reason I'm saying it should be on the bottom is that the most recent polling should be on top. I don't know what more you want.

Second, by accusing me of having a secret bias against Kulongoski is assuming bad faith in general. As I said your approach was poor at best, but I've continued to try to work with you nonetheless. However, that may not be the case for too much longer.

Third, I've suggested that you rewrite or reedit the Kulongoski article for clarity and content. Maybe you aren't taking that suggestion seriously. As I said previously, not all of the content in that article was written by myself. I have simply been working with what is there. This again is a bad faith assumption on your part.

Fourth, again I repeat the fact that I added things that could be percieved as pro-Kulongoski including mentioning the fact that the "endorsement" from Multonomah County Democrats was questionable because of the circumstances under which it was done.

Fifth, I again challange what possible ties you have to the Kulongoski camapign. Since you are harping specifically on this article it makes me curious why you haven't questioned the numerous other political articles on Oregon politicans. To me, this comes back to the fact that you should be under the same scruitiny you put me under.

Sixth, if you have specific recommendations, then make then and let's move on. I have many other things to do on Wikipedia (in fact an entire list of things) that I would rather be doing then arguing about one article. Davidpdx 00:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)