Talk:Keith Marlowe/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Note

To Ameria idol1972 and Blogger82 (if that really is you and not an anonymous IP masquerading as you)--please discuss proposed changes here rather than wasting time/bandwidth changing the article back and forth--it's filling up my watchlist!!! Stop sniping each other and instead talk over things. And Blogger82, please log in :(. Clearly, you two are trying to improve this article but are coming from two VERY different viewpoints. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

M1ss1ontomars2k4--Huh? I haven't edited the article in a very long time, mainly because I'm satisfied with the changes that FellowWikipedian has done. The only comments I've made are on the discussion page recently. I now learned how to sign my name (with 4 tilthes) recently, hence the confusion before on the 'deletion/talk' page. ( I was using brackets). I haven't erased Ameria Idol's citation yet, because I think he/she should have some time (maybe 3 days or so) to come up with evidence to prove that his/her opinions (or the opinions of the 'others' that were 'unfairly' deleted) can somehow be proven (even you yourself pointed this out on the history) . ESP. considering that we have a quote by political journalists on here contradicting said opinions!!!!!

BTW, If you're going to threaten to start banning people, you should start with people who vandalize the discussion page, which is explictly forbidden by Wikipedia rules. I posted something earlier and it was erased (by an unknown IP address, considering the remarks made, probably Ameria). It was later reinserted by another unknown IP address (whoever you are, thanks, although you should sign in so we know who to thank!).

Finally, I'd just like to say I was the one who originally comprimised and said to edit the page itself. I even said that I didn't mind if the parts that I had personally written were deleted or not, but don't delte them if they were properly referenced and cited (which FellowWikipedian did to most of it).

P.S Yes, you did violate WP:BITE. But no worries. Just be more careful next time!! You can stop referring to me as (if this is you) or (if you are real). Hope I cleared up your confusion about the signatures earlier. --Blogger82 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Blogger82 get a life I don't delete what people post on the discussion page as this is what it is used for. Maybe, you should check the history of the page to see who change the remarks. Though the slight chance I did delete the comments I do apoligize as it would have been a mistake.

• Apology accepted. Thanks for being civil about everything. Don't forget to sign your name with 4 tilthes or use the signature button.--Blogger82 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not edit the article for a long time since, I had spent a lot of time trying to improve it. I also did not delete anything that was properly referenced and cited.FellowWikipedian 20:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, there is an archive of the old discussions--the link is near the top of the page. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph in Question

"However, Marlowe was unable to personally support the youth wing motion because at the founding convention for the Conservative Party he was unable to win a delegate spot and was not elected to his local riding association board. Marlowe the Former Youth President was forced to attend the convention as a media representative though he came close to being denied that by party officials"

-Someone keeps erasing this and then someone keeps putting it back up there (or in a different form than above), but---hasn't anyone been able to verify this paragraph yet? I mean there's an edit war here and we should probably settle it once and for all. Which party officials? How do we know he was unable to win a spot? Did he run and lose or simply just not run at all? Maybe if Ameria Idol or other anon. IP address who keeps posting it up here--perhaps they have sources that they'd like to post here? Anyways just trying to make the article better. The only reason I ask is because one could make the implication that Marlowe is no longer welcomed by the elites in the new party---which would be a key piece of information for anyone seeking to find information about this topic. --Blogger82 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it here until someone can verify it, at which time we can put it back. For right now, I vote we put the NPOV

“

Although Marlowe was unable to attend as an official delegate, he was able to attend as a media representative.

”

--M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we ask Keith Marlowe himself if he attended the convention? He posts from the U of Windsor sockpuppet IP's in Canada, or maybe we can ask the zone president or the local representative for the riding Jason Kennie from Canada if he can verify this? BowRiver75

Other, more relevant, and seemingly factual information has been deleted. This seems to be, if true, a small and irrelevant part of this Wikipedia page. Until a published source can be found, it should be removed. The onus should be on the people reposting to get a source.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.226.187 (talk • contribs).

Hey BowRiver, sign your name with four tildes next time instead of with double brackets. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• BowRiver75-It has to be source presented by the person posting the pargraph in question. So its not up to Marlowe (if its him--I think someone pointed out it could just be someone calling themselves kmarlowe---probably not, not my theory, but it exists---or whoever at UofWindsor) to post it. Its up to the people who posted (and keep re-posting) it. (Unsigned IP, yourself, Ameria). Again, the reason why I think its important to cite THIS particular paragraph in question is because it changes the whole meaning of the article. If proven, it contradicts the evidence provided by the political journalists, leading to an implication that Marlowe may have been ostracized by the elites or "officials of the party" (as the quote says), providing crucial information to someone reading about this topic. --Blogger82 10:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• M1ss1ontomars2k4-Agreed. I agree with your proposition that it should be taken out and left here in the discussion page until someone can verify it and put it back. I think that once its proven with evidence that everyone can easily access, the NPOV thing should defintely go back as there are two different viewpoints presented. That of the political journalists and that of---"Other Adherents" or whatever. I'm not sure if we should put it down NOW, because I'm not sure how much 'weight' it has (See: Undue Weight). Again, if we (or rather, the above 3 in question) can find notable proponents (maybe other political journalists??) of these thoughts AND find evidence that is easily accessible to everyone with an internet connection (ie: We can all go and click and read said evidence in question), then I'm fully in favour of it.--Blogger82 10:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well somebody send an e-mail to Keith and ask. There isn't two different view points at all. There is the view of the few journalist Marlowe quoted on his page, and the fact he was not able to attend the convention as a delegate. Acually no need, just check out his website and look in the photo gallery for proof that he attended the convention as a media delegate and not as a voting delegate. The photo of Keith Marlowe and Tony Clement shows that Keith is wearing a yellow identity card which designated media, and Tony Clement is wearing a Conservative one which designated voting delegate. You can also find the photos of James Moore which shows the difference in name tags.

• Travis, you should log in. Stop the personal attacks.

• Hi Keith, how was the trip to Boston?

• How are things working for dad at Nexen?

• Not working for dad. Nexen hires family members who are attending University, and place them in different departments. Though nice try at a cheap shot. :)

• Then maybe you should be working, no? Bottom line - your edits are personally motivated and even when there is consensus to keep something off, you have to persist. I'm glad you take such an interest, but perhaps you can find something else to do.

• Keith my edits are not personally motivated, but if you do find them to be unfair I do apoligize. That is not my intention. I simply want the page to be non-bias. I am willing to stop putting back on the paragraph you don't like unless it can be resolved. Just wish you wouldnt get so uptight about somebody editing your wikipedia page. Keith, your a nice guy but need to calm down about something so small.

• A) It's not my page, B) Not uptight, C) Nice chatting with you.

• a) Quite right, everyone better realize that, B) Mr. Marlowe, just because this page is about you does not me you own it, although it is logical to take a personal interest in its progress, C) WP:NOT a place for chats between chums. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ummmm...OK. Wow. So I guess my prediction was right. I had a feeling that some of the people that were editing this stuff had their own motivations and were political enemies. Glad to see I was right. Whatever. "Travis" you should probably take up any problems you have with "Keith" privately---on his userpage discussion page for example.

-In response to your paragraph-- (PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR RESPONSES! Its incredibly annoying to figure out who said what). I'm guessing you're the one who actually posted this to begin with....?

-"However, Marlowe was unable to personally support the youth wing motion because at the founding convention for the Conservative Party he was unable to win a delegate spot and was not elected to his local riding association board. Marlowe the Former Youth President was forced to attend the convention as a media representative though he came close to being denied that by party officials"

-He was unable to personally support it? What does this mean? Do you mean he couldn't vote for it or that he couldn't support it? Those are two different things.

-"Unable to win a delegate spot....etc". Why unable to win? Did he run and lose or did he not run at all? If someone were attending another University a far way off then I'd say it would make sense for said person not to run in their own particular riding since they would be leaving. Anyways, as you can see, this point needs to be cited. Maybe there's an article you can pull out describing this...? (By the way, Saying "'Send Keith an email' or 'Ask Keith' or 'Ask so and so'" is not acceptable by wikipedia standards, you're the one that made the claim so you're the one that has to show it with a reliable source described by Wikipedia--that's pretty much the way it works. If it can't be shown it has to be erased--which happened to some of my information that I put on there and I was cool with it)

-Personally, I can't actually see the picture. Its not coming up on my computer for some reason, I keep getting an error. Anyways, If it works out for anyone else let me know. In any case, the better thing to say is "Keith Marlowe attended the 2005 convention as a member of the media, and was thus unable to vote for the youth wing motion", which makes sense, and can be cited easily---and without difficulty--if and when the picture works and if everyone can see the media pass clearly (that is says MEDIA on it or something like that in big letters).

-"Forced to attend as a media representative"---This is interesting if it can be proven that it was 'forced'. Does that mean that party officials would have rejected him if he applied for another status? Like an observer one? In another words--why did you use the word 'forced'?

-"Though he came close to being denied that by party officials"--How do you know this? Do you have any thing that can be cited to demonstrate this? Which "Party Officials"?

-Anyways those are my questions. Just trying to make the article more informative and better for people. Hopefully we can all settle this stuff soon. BTW, considering the lengths that you guys have gone with this stuff it seems that you both need to calm down. I don't really track IP addresses etc. but to me personally---its kind of...scary IMHO.--Blogger82 15:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

James Moore is a conservative MP for the BC riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam. Jason Kenny is a conservative MP for the Alberta riding of Calgary Southeast. That is what I found out. FellowWikipedian 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Blogger82 said it could just be someone calling themselves kmarlowe or whoever at UofWindsor. Keith you are probably a nice person. FellowWikipedian 00:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I try to be good, but these things can bring out the worst in people sometimes, unfortunately. :) At any rate, I think Travis and I have things worked out on the back-and-forth editing. 72.38.226.187 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this edit war is coming to an end. FellowWikipedian 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's Who on This Page

• 137.207.238.105--Keith Marlowe (IP reg'd to U of W)
• KMarlowe -- Keith Marlowe Username
• 137.207.206.173/137.207.180.53/137.207.206.173/137.207.238.107 -- Other IP address used by Keith Marlowe
• 63.138.244.46 --Keith Marlowe from Boston Hotel
• 204.209.24.2--Travis, a friend/enemy/archnemesis of Keith Marlowe (IP reg'd to Nexen, Inc.)
• Blogger82 - Ken, friend of Keith.

Who is 72.38.226.187 again? I forgot. FellowWikipedian 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I thinks that's BowRiver75, but I'm not sure. Also we should probably figure out who randomly added a {{db-bio}} tag, since the general consensus here is that the article is NOT eligible for speedy deletion. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

72.38.226.187 = Another IP used by Keith Marlowe (see above where he admits it was him)

• Yes, I think that is a good question. Who is 82.127.44.228, from France?