User talk:Arbor8

Welcome!

I used to be Arbor832466 but for the sake of simplicity, I am now just Arbor8. Still me. Shorter name. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Schilling

My block had nothing to do with abuse of the page. That was a cheap shot. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you edited that particular page with multiple different socks. Am I wrong? Arbor832466 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I edited it with legitimate intentions with one sock. Please know what you're talking about before you make accusations and call my edits into question. I do not appreciate your personal attacks over a content dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

From SteelersFan123

I would like to know what was "not constructive" about writing down Lipinski's recent comments about HR 3. Please explain further. Thank you. (just moving this for formatting purposes Arbor832466 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC))SteelersFan123 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)SteelersFan123

I cited all of my sources and what was written about him was only in regards to his stances on HR 3. I would like a very concise and thorough explanation. Thirteen percent of contributors to Wikipedia are women. I finally write about something that interests me as a woman, and I am immediately deleted. I am done with Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for squelching my voice about issues that matter to me as a woman in America today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelersFan123 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, SteelersFan. Your edits to Dan Lipinski were not constructive because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for everything someone has ever said. For more on contributing to Wikipedia, and how to do so within the style of the project, take a look at What Wikipedia is not and WP:NOTABILITY.

Nobody is squelching your voice, I'm just asking that you follow the same standards and practices as everybody else, including WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV.

I'd also note that I, too, am a female editor, and I'm glad you're here! Arbor832466 (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arbor8. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

From Schandenling

Arbor832466 your tactics are bully some. As a proud, gay abortion doctor, I will advise you to cease this conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schandenling (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking you to follow the same standards and practices as everyone else is not bullying, Schandenling. I would advise you to avoid personal attacks. Is there an edit of mine you disagreed with in particular? Arbor832466 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob Etheridge

Please do not accuse me of posting my own viewpoint in the Bob Etheridge article. The supposed "facts" presented in the article prior to my edit were from an opinion column. My edit clarifies that the "source" did not quote any sources of its own. That is a FACT, not an opinion. It also states that the source did not name the supposed "Republican strategists." That is a FACT, not an opinion. I'm sorry if the narrative conflicts with your political viewpoint but Wikipedia is about FACTS I do believe and those are what I added. Please don't cite me some esoteric opertating guidelines either to tell me I'm wrong, we all know what the defintion of "is" is, and we know what a fact is. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, anon. Feel free to rewrite the section in a way that complies with Wikipedia guidelines, but do not re-insert weasel words like "claims," scare quotes or your own analysis. Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Are you a fluent speaker of the English language? If so, please define "fact": _____________________.

2. The "source" cited in the article did not quote any sources of its own. Is this a fact in your mind, or not? Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no."

3. The "source" cited in the article did not name these supposed "Republican political strategists." Is this a fact in your mind, or not? Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no."

4. If your answer to #3 is anything but an unquivocal "yes," please state the names of thes "Republican political strategists": __________________. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Anon, you are way out of line and about to get yourself blocked by another editor. Tone it down. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Corbridge. Some of your recent edits are bordering on incivility. Please try to direct your comments at the content of Wikipedia, not at the character of other editors. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make up facts. You might disagree with things that I said, but you cannot make up facts. I did not make any comments directly at anyone's character. That is just false. Please stop immediately.--Corbridge (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)