User talk:Arzel

Archive 1

RFCs

While it is certainly discouraged to do an edit that is being discussed in an RFC, there is nothing that disallows it. Despite that, it's also not an exception to WP:EW. While adding it also isn't an exception to edit warring, in the future it will be better if you just ask me if it appears that a revert might be seen as controversial. It is not better to ask forgiveness...--v/r - TP 01:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you can see the initial edit was contentious. The santions do not eliminate the ability to revert obviously contentious edits without clear concensus. Ask yourself the merits of the inclusion and the answer is clear. There is a strong desire to imply that Ryan is a liar, ISS has stated several times explicity that Ryan is a liar. When you take this into consideration there is simply no good response other than to remove the edit, and if anything you should have warned the editor which violated the basic principle of RfC which from my previous experience Everyone abides. Arzel (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Contentious edits is not an exception in Wikipedia:EW#3RR_exemptions. Negative information that is well sourced does not count as a WP:BLP exemption either.--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from Paul Ryan

Because of the ongoing edit warring on Paul Ryan, I am topic banning you from Paul Ryan until the conclusion of the RFC on the marathon issue. This topic ban may be appealed to Arbcom or WP:ANI. Under no circumstances may you edit Paul Ryan or Talk:Paul Ryan until the RFC has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. Also, you are placed on a WP:1RR on all 2012 Presidential Campaign articles until the expiration of the community article probation.--v/r - TP 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

All presidential capaign articles are currently under 1RR restrictions, so your second sentence is meaningless. If you had taken control of the situation and not allowed an editor to determine current consensus during the RfC you would have stopped this from being an issue from the beginning. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For civilly adding to the conversation at WT:WikiProject Conservatism#Liberal bias, I hereby present to you this Barnstar. Your contributions, I believe, reflect the best traditions (all be them young) of the Wikipedia editing community.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Binders full of women

Hello Arzel.

• 1) The {{db-a7}} doesn't apply, the article is not about individuals, animals, organizations or web content, it is about a claim in a debate, please check the criterion
• 2) three editors contested speedy deletion (User:Casprings, User:DoriSmith and me), which means the speedy deletion is questionable, please check the talk page
• 3) anyone except the page creator can contest speedy deletion
• 4) I'm an admin, but that's not that important

I partly agree with your objections to keep this article. You can take the article to AfD and properly explain your reasons to delete it. Thank you.

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is disruptive - don't re-add declined CSDs, which can be removed by anyone except the article creator (but especially so in the limit of totally invalid A7s). I see you've recently been topic banned from another American election article, and previously blocked for edit warring on American political articles. Take those actions and this warning to heart - you won't get what you're after by being disruptive; you'll just get blocked. WilyD 06:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on me rather than my problem with the use of WP for political purposes. I appreciate that. Arzel (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You just deleted my contribution to this article, again. Please explain where a better organized summation and direct quotes that put things in perspective are in any way a violation of anything. This in an article you are actively trying to eliminate. As I see it, this is your POV pushing too . . . to prevent the truth from being presented. Feel free to nit pick at the words of my own attempts to summarize, but you have no right to hide the essence of the sourced information. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a vote here for deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2012_(2nd_nomination)#Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates.2C_2012

Since you commented on the talk page, I thought you might want to be informed. I found it by accident. Mugginsx (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arzel. You have new messages at Talk:List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Message added 09:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Paris1127 (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page of List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council I invited you to edit the content I contributed. I am again offering you the opportunity to (look at it in article history) find where there is any POV I inserted and clean it up. Lets find some room for compromise. My intent is just to get the truth of the matter presented. The truth as presented by reliable sources, about what the American Legislative Exchange Council really does. So lets try to bring Wikipedia up to the standards of what the other media of the world are reporting. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Romney on FEMA

Please join the conversation on the Political positions of Mitt Romney Talk page. Dezastru (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandy

It is sourced and a reasonable important aspect of the storm, as it will have an effect on a national election. Casprings (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that you seem to have no concept of historical context? Arzel (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Pardon?

This [1] makes no sense. If you had something to say, do please try re-saying it, but not on a third parties talk page, that would be impolite William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment was not directed at you, I have since made it more clear. Sorry for the confusion. Arzel (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Butterfingers

I'm sorry for reverting your comment on the War on Women talk page. I apparently clicked rollback while viewing the page history and did not realize it. I have since restored your edit. - MrX 03:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please Stop

you are the one who keeps reverting an accurate description of a location i.e. carlsbad, ca not me.

it is a known affluent resort town. throughout wikipedia locations are described as "affluent" or with other adjectives and there is no source provided. why are you labeling correct information "unsourced" and "POV" is the real question. and why in the first place did you remove the word affluent when it accurately describes carlsbad (i should know i live there after all). seems like your a conservative with an agenda but please correct me if i'm wrong. get back to me, thanks. Tjelsund (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

update: just responded to this dispute on the se cupp talk page. take care. Tjelsund (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk)

Friendly 3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Political activities of the Koch brothers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Koch bros dispute

Hi Arzel. We are one the same side of this dispute but I am often running up against you in the discussion. First, your response to the RFC lacked any reasoning based on policy and then most of your posts tend to address perceived faults in those you are responding to as well as their positions. I would very much appreciate it if you could formulate your position as clearly as you can and then state it in as many ways as you need in response to those you disagree with but without the ad hominem tone. If you can do that I think the discussion is much more likely to go in our favor. I'm no debating wizard but I know it's important to address the issues and not the participants. Thanks. Jojalozzo 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I started a discussion on this at WP:ORN on your edits Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. It can be found here. Casprings (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You're at 3RR, Arzel, and I strongly advise you against continuing to revert. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ken Cuccinelli

Arzel, regarding your recent edits to the Ken Cuccinelli page, 1. The deletion you made under the taxes section is fine, I didn't add that to my knowledge 2. The edit to the number of votes won in one of the elections needs to remain what I had it. I had simply corrected a mathematical error in counting the total votes cast. As of now (your recent edit), the number is wrong and the math doesn't add up. 3. I was not attacking anyone. The reason I edited the section on homosexuality was because the sentence "opposed a nondiscrimination policy against gays and lesbians and stated about homosexual acts... etc" was factually incorrect and left out important clauses of the quote. Referring to the college policies, he didn't oppose it. He simply provided legal interpretation that the policies were not in line with the General Assembly. Referring to the Governor's policy issued after the fact (which is what he was hammered for "not supporting"), he wasn't allowed to support it because it was a policy opinion, not a legal opinion. Since he was acting as legal counsel, he wasn't allowed to offer policy opinion.

I broke the college controversy out into it's own section so that it could be explained that he was not guilty of espousing an anti-civil rights stance but that he merely was issuing a legal opinion on what the law is. By your edit comment, you seem to like Mr. Cuccinelli, so I have a hard time understanding why you opposed this clarification. My edits took unsubstantiated claims against him and explained that he was performing his duties as Attorney General and nothing more.

I am going to revert the edits, although I will redo the one you made regarding the taxes section for you. I welcome you to edit the homosexuality section of the page to make it more clear. Deleting facts because they're 2 years old is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Deleting factual explanation that happens to line up with your own views just doesn't make sense. Read the edits. If you think it places too much emphasis on a minor detail then feel free to condense that point instead of deleting it. ResidentCelt (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that this issue also appears under Ken Cuccinelli's actions as Attorney General, higher up on the page. If you have an idea for how to combine the two sections, that would be appreciated. Perhaps moving the section, that I added, to the "Gay Rights" subheader of the Attorney General section. The existing paragraph under that section is haphazardly written. ResidentCelt (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "talk:Paul Krugman".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Elizabeth Warren‎ Please read the article in full. It makes it pretty clear that only the more distant relatives are unaware of her Native heritage. Her three siblings back her. Her cousin recalls her grandmother making the same claim. Her school friend recalls it. The so called 'mixed' memories is that some of her extended family were aware and some weren't. Please don't restare language that makes it seem as if some back her claim and other refute it, saying something like 'No, she's lying, she's white through and through.' No one from her extended family has said anything like that. It's only that some of her extended family did not know about the Native heritage in Warren's family. If you want to add that some members of her extended family were unaware of Native blood in Warren's parents, that's fine. But make sure to make it clear that her close family (some cousins, her brothers and sisters, make the same claim). FurrySings (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I read the source, and it does not back up your point of view. The edit never made any accusation that she was lying, it was quite clear. Now your last suggestion is simply not an accurate reflection of the source. Some members of her family were unaware of the claim of Native blood, but your wording implies that it was true and they just didn't know about it. You also seem to have some confusion about family relationships. By definition of the relationship all of her cousins which shared the same blood relative would have the same amount of Native blood (if it exists), how personally close Warren is to them is simply not relevant. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Surely you must see that an edit like this: "Even though Warren’s 'family has mixed opinions on' Warren's Native American ancestry claims," makes it seem like some in her family say "She's lying" while others say "She's not lying". This is not what the article says. The article says "A number of her cousins echo Warren’s assertion" and "other cousins say they know nothing of Native American ancestry". I hope you'll help me in reaching consensus about how to reflect what the source says. FurrySings (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC) With your indulgence, I will copy this conversation to the article talkpage, since I realize now that it should have been kept there in the first place. Sincerely FurrySings (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#talk:Paul_Krugman comment location? I believe that your comment "This issue is generating a good deal of coverage ...", in the "Krugman's column is a WP:PRIMARY source", belongs in the "Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant" thread. Deicas (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC) You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Single-payer health care and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration; Wikipedia:Arbitration guide. Thanks, Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion Hello, Arzel. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.here CartoonDiablo RFC/U As you've been somewhat involved, I wanted you to be aware of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CartoonDiablo. Thanks, Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Request for Arbitration declined This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion Hello, Arzel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rubio Take a break, Arzel -- you're well past 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC) You apprently don't know the difference between a revert and addition of new content. Arzel (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC) You may not use personal observation (i.e. original research) to claim that all criticism comes from "liberals". You would need a reliable source that makes this assertion. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Krugman is a well-known self-admitted liberal. No original research needed so there is no need to keep your head in the sand. Arzel (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I don't deny that, but you are generalizing from it in an unsourced manner. That's not acceptable. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC) What genearlization? All the criticism has come from the left. Name one non-left person to make that criticism. It is highly POV to simply say commentators like it is a general criticism when it clearly is not. Arzel (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC) You need a source that says that. You can't observe it yourself, it has to be sourced! Yworo (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC) To quote our policy on no original research: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You have not provided a source that supports the contention that "All the criticism has come from the left." Yworo (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I know the policies, but one does not need a source to say that the sky is blue. Seriously, use some common sense. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)