Talk:Campaign to Defend the Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Making this entry NPOV

OK, calm down, it's just an entry. Yes it is too much like an ad, but Defcon deserves to have an entry. How about editing the text rather than burying the page in tags?--Cberlet 20:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (aka Chip Berlet, Defcon board member)

I've "buried" nothing in tags.

Yes it is too much like an ad...

Hence, the {{advert}} tag.

...Defcon deserves to have an entry

Why? For its charming good looks? Hence, the {{notability}} tag.

How about editing the text

Not my field, and not my job to clean up someone else's ad copy (see second point above), hence my note to you. My first impulse was to slap a richly deserved {{db-spam}} tag on it, but I was doing you a favor by notifying you first. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an unhelpful defensive reaction and nasty response. I just spent 20 minutes researching and helping rewrite this entry. This type of arrogant and self-righteous attack is not useful, and is very offensive to me. I appreciated your notice, and went to work the first chance I got. You should apologize to every editor that has just worked on this article for the past hour to make it better. --Cberlet 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an unhelpful defensive reaction and nasty response. Speak for yourself. "Bury in tags"? "do it yourself"? "deserves to have an entry"?

This type of arrogant and self-righteous attack is not useful, and is very offensive to me. Really? Then try to avoid it yourself.

You should apologize to every editor that has just worked on this article for the past hour to make it better. No. You should thank me for letting you save an obvious press-release-disguised-as-an-article instead of having it sent it immmediately to the bit bucket. You have a cause to promote: fine, but it doesn't give you a pass on Wikipedia standards, mores, and procedures, no matter how righteous your cause. So don't try to sell me on the martyr complex, because I'm not buying. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for proving my point better than I ever could. I honestly appreciate it.You have saved me so much work. Congratulations!--Cberlet 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pee Wee Herman "I meant to do that!" defense is a non-starter, also. If you don't have an actual response, don't insult my intelligence by pretending you do. Try using some of your crack investigative journalist skills to find who, exactly, notified you to come save this article, and what that implies. Let me know when you've solved that mystery, or if you need a bigger hint. --Calton | Talk 12:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Job

I had the same concerns as Calton but I really feel as if this article sounds encyclopedic now. Kudos to the editors who have made it so. Please continue to expand and improve it. Next task for someone, I imagine, would be to write articles for the redlinked people in it, or if they are not otherwise notable, to change them to unlinked. MKoltnow 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)