User talk:Info999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

[edit] Reverting and disagreements and other stuff related to Carolyn McCarthy

Thank you for your "words of advice" but the way I see it you had been reverting quite a bit there of people who were disagreeing with you. I don't think putting the same fact of her being a Republican twice in the same article is neutral or right for the Wikipedia. The compromise I had was more then fair so that the fact is stated and it is relevant where it was placed.

I'm sorry you disagree with my assertions and those of other Wikipedians, but I will not be bullied into doing things that one person says it has to be because that someone has taken it upon themselves to own a page for their own to edit. I have read the rules and read them over and over again. I know full well the rules here and I have done nothing in the wrong here with my edits that broke the rules or was an improper edit. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just a certain few who think they know better then all. I have been around Wikipedia for many years, so I am well aware of how things work here and have contributed to quite a good many articles. I am sorry you don't agree with my views on this. But I do think in the fairness of the article, my compromise there was more then fair so all sides are happy. If you would like to debate it more in the talk pages I suppose we can do that too but nothing you have said there has made me or others feel in error on not stating something twice in the very same article.

But honestly I would prefer not to get into an argument with you on the discussions pages of the congresswomen as I think the point has already been made by many people that it seems a bit biased to keep on throwing the fact that she was Republican previously before running as a Democrat. And to have to repeat that and also place it at a weird point at the end of the article just comes off as political and not neutral as Wikipedia should be. It is stated in the third paragraph. I expanded on it to make it acceptable to all. You didn't like that.. well I don't know what else to tell you . I mean the idea is neutral and not to spam pages with the same facts. Starting the same thing twice in the same page is not acceptable Wikipedia practice. I removed the later one you didn't like that saying it expanded on the first one. So I expanded on the first one there and that you didn't like. So to me it comes off as more then just the reasons you are stating here and that is political nonsense being used in the name of being a good Wikipedian and that is not fair to the people who contribute or to Wikipedia in a whole.

You can say my spelling needs work, ok maybe you are right there. (didn't even edit my spelling here.) I will spell check from now on as it is important and if anything that should be taken with great attention. But what was going on there was not acceptable. You do fine work, I think your intentions are great, don't get me wrong. But repeating the same fact there like that is not fair to her and is a slap in the face to Wikipedia as if someone is going to pull the wool over peoples eyes and make it seem like a non biased view point that you in the discussions are trying to claim that we stand for there. Lets not get into a quoting of the rules war either. I know em all. Be Bold! Is the first rule you read. Sitting back as things go on that are not appropriate is not the way of Wikipedia. I have done nothing against the rules here. Sorry we disagree but we are only human and it happens.

Thank you for your kind words sir but I know full well how Wikipedia works and have been around for a very long time. I suggest you also use your advice and listen to the people there who have disagreed with your additions there and over editing of the page. I look forward to working with you more there on that and many other pages here on Wikipedia and hope that we have now moved past this until a fair compromise is reached that is proper for Wikipedia. PantheraLeo 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inhofe

Hi. Just doing my bit to clarify things. Can you find a clear unambiguous quote from Inhofe asserting, pre-reversal, that GW is not happening? (answer here) William M. Connolley 16:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)