User talk:70.160.180.8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content (as you did on George Felix Allen ). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Vandalism to Thelma Drake page

You will be banned from wikipedia if you continue to vandalise this pg. 17:44, 10 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Disillusioned- (talk • contribs).

Removal of information without explanation or justification is vandalism. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. John Broughton 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To John Broughton: I will continue to remove your biased anti-Drake spin from this page. 12:00, 7 July 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.180.8 (talk • contribs).
I've set up a section on the Talk:Thelma Drake page for you to explain why you think the content you've removed is biased anti-Drake spin, as opposed to factual statements. I've also made some minor wording changes that I think address at least some of your concerns. You might want to do more such minor editing to remove what you see as "spin".
Removing entire paragraphs is probably just going to result in your removals being reverted. I hope you'll agree that it would be more constructive to discuss this further. John Broughton 14:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The information about the campaign is now in Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006. -- Sholom 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Wikipedia offers several ways for resolving a disagreement about how an article should read, if editors cannot reach consensus, as seems to be the case with Thelma Drake. User:Sholom and I offer to take our disagreement with you to mediation, if you agree. John Broughton 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of three-revert rule

It has become clear from the log of changes to the Thelma Drake article, and review of your user contribution logs, that you used 155.188.247.7 twice today, at work, to revert this article, plus did so a third time under this IP address, at home. That is a violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY WARNING YOU WILL GET. IF YOU DO SO AGAIN, I WILL REPORT THE VIOLATION AND YOUR IP ACCESS WILL BE BLOCKED. John Broughton 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Are you stupid?

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Do you read edit summaries? Two edits ago, I said this in one of mine:

Exactly what part of "Detailed information regarding the campaign belongs in the campaign article - Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006." do you not understand?

Let me try to explain this in simple words. The Thelma Drake article is about things that pertain to HER, not to the 2006 campaign. Yes, there should be a SMALL section about the campaign in the article, but it is intended to be a brief SUMMARY of the situation - essentially, who she is running against, and who is leading (or not) in the race.

Details about the campaign belong in the CAMPAIGN article. I'm going to repeat that in the hopes that you'll read the next sentence if you didn't read the prior one: Details about the campaign belong in the CAMPAIGN article. Details about TV ads belong in the campaign article. Details about fundraising belong in the campaign article. Details about key campaign issues belong in the campaign article.

That campaign article is here: Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006. (Yes, I'm repeating the link.)

You can keep posting campaign details to the Thelma Drake article until the Earth stops orbiting around the sun, but if you do, they are just going to continue to be deleted, because that means you just don't understand enough about the situation to post information in the right place.

And now for a word of explanation: AFTER the election is over, the campaign details are totally irrelevant to the Thelma Drake article. That article (after November) should only say who she ran against, whether she won or lost (and by how much), and POSSIBLY a reason or two why she won or lost. The separate CAMPAIGN article PRESERVES the campaign information permanently (well, as permanently as wikipedia is), for someone to go back and look at what happened. Because in 2008, someone may be interested in the 2006 campaign.

And yes, I'd be happy to delete this entire posting if you'd STOP trying to put campaign details (television ads, whatever) into the WRONG ARTICLE.

Thank you. John Broughton 00:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule at Thelma Drake. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but please also make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Thanks! :-) --Chris S. 05:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counteroffer

Mediation is for situations where there is a good faith disagreement over a subjective issue, such as whether something is pov or not. That is not the case here. The issue here is an objective one: I refuse to allow you to apply a standard to me that you will not accept for yourself.

So, this is the one offer I will make: You decide whether we (and anyone else) can post campaign-related material here. If so, I will repost the neutral campaign-related material that I had up previously. If not, then I will continue to delete any campaign-related material that you post (or that anyone else posts).

Bottom line: I will never agree to allow you to post campaign-related material while deleting mine. I give you the privilege of deciding the standard that will be applied to us all equally.

22:37, 29 July 2006 70.160.180.8

Mediation is for ANY disagreement, not just disagreements over "subjective" matters. The word "subjective" is used ONCE in the Wikipedia:Mediation page, and not at all as you state: Mediation does not have a set structure or methods, although some common elements exist: .... Conversion of respective subjective evaluations into more objective values.
Let me summarize the situation as I understand it: you feel your position is correct, and you are not willing to involve any other editor for mediation or any other process to resolve this dispute. Is that correct? Because I think you're absolutely wrong that one editor (you) has the right to ignore the rest of the wikipedia community. So I will end with a warning: if you refuse to participate in wikipedia dispute resolution processes, those processes will occur without you. And the final result will be that your editing priviledges will be blocked, because wikipedia cannot allow a single person to set him/herself up as the arbitrator of what is acceptable or not. Like it or not, wikipedia is a COMMUNITY. By chosing to edit wikipedia articles, you've chosen to be governed by the rules of the community. If you don't want to observe those rules - including resolution processes - then you should get a blog or other forum where you don't have to follow such rules. John Broughton 00:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You also seem to have difficulty grappling with other people's positions. You claim that either all information about the campaign must be included, or none. This is a false dichotomy, as was been frequently discussed on the talk page. The detailed stuff can go on the campaign page, and the summary stuff on the Thelma Drake page.
Also, I take some umbrage at you referring to the MoveOn stuff as "your" material. Encylopedia information is neutral, and it's no one's place to "own" part of Wikipedia. Anyway, I wrote the material you want to include! It just belongs on the campaign page, not here, because it is detailed, not summary. Lucky Adrastus 05:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You might consider: why is it that you have taken an "all or nothing" position here -- viz., that either all campaign info can go in here or none of it can. It seems to be the case that everyone else who has weighed in on it has a different view: that a summary sentence or two is proper in this article so that the reader can decide whether s/he wants to go to the campaign article. That is, in fact, how other candidates' articles are (which have corresponding campaign articles). The issue really is as simple as that, it's got nothing to do with POV. -- Sholom 06:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. TigerShark 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALISM WARNING

I completely fail to understand your deletion of text in the Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006 article. You removed a quotation from the Washington Post. What in the world do you think you're doing? A quotation from a reputable newspaper is about as good as anything gets in wikipedia articles. Calling it, as you did, selective pov material and saying that it makes the article into a candidate's campaign site is absurd. Do you think that wikipedia should NEVER quote ANYTHING positive about any candidate? If you do, can you point to ANY wikipedia policy that says that?

No one is going to stop you from adding NOTEWORTHY pro-Drake information to the campaign article. Why in the world do you think you have ANY right to delete what you see as pro-Kellam text from that article? Is this some sort of spite? There isn't ANYTHING subjective about what you just did (twice) - you removed verifiable material that was positive toward the candidate you don't like. There isn't a wikipedia administrator in the universe who wouldn't immediately judge you to be wrong on this. Don't be stupid - stop. John Broughton 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to protect these pages from the Kellam campaign's effort to use it to propagandize for its candidate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.180.8 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiries from the WP:AMA

Hello, I'm Steve Caruso and I'm acting as Sholom's Advocate. Sholom has requested my assistance to articulate his concerns and work towards a workable compromise over the edit war that is going on within Thelma Drake and other related articles.

I'm 99% sure that you are aware that multiple reversions of from an anonymous IP address of content is considered vandalism under our policies here, and from your block log, I see that you have been recently blocked for violating the three revert rule. Many of the Administrators here have very little patience for 3RR violations, and posting as an anonymous IP address instead as an established Wikipeida account may get you summarily blocked for an indefinite period of time if another 3RR violation occurs. Might I suggest that, to give your concerns a bit more weight, that you register a username here?

Secondly, I note that you reference the "no-campaign-material-on-bio-page standard," however there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that even implies that particular "standard" that I am aware of. The closest thing that I could find to your subject matter, off the top of my head, is Wikipedia's Guidelines on the Biographies of Living Persons which stresses the citing of reliable sources and 3rd party information. Congressional Quarterly and the Washington Post appear to meet the criteria. What are your motivations and goals for repeatedly removing these sources from the article, and do you plan on adding your own content? If you feel that Sholom's additions are inappropriate, please explain it to me.

I'm not a Mediator or an Administrator; however, Advocacy is a respected practice here on Wikipedia and has become an integral part of Dispute Resolution, so I respectfully request that you give my questions due weight as I am trying my best to fully ascess the situation of this dispute. Hopefully we can all find a compromise and resolve our issues over this article in an amicable a mutually beneficial fashion. Does that sound like something worth trying? :-)

אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop reverting

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --... discospinster talk 23:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006

Your recent edit to Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, you've earned yourself a day's block. Please learn to behave properly. Even if you disagree with the statements in the article, you cannot get people to agree with you by behaving in such a fashion. DS 23:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.160.180.8.html"