User talk:Dpky

Welcome!

Hello, Dpky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Kentucky state treasurer election, 2011, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 5 albert square (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
Lionel (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proquest Article

Sorry I missed your note yesterday. I've sent the article to your email address. Will Beback talk 20:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I've got a few concerns about some of the things you've been adding to the section of the Michele Bachmann article on the light bulb ban. Particularly the reference to NEMA's mission statement- there is a Wikipedia policy against original research, and making connections between NEMA's goals of promoting their members interests (which may well include offshore production of CFLs, etc) and a perceived lack of regard for personal freedom is original research. Nevard (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I understand your concerns. I think what needs to be resolved is "what is the point of including NEMA in the article". If the point is to jukstapose that Bachmann made an inacurate statement, then we need to note what makes NEMA's claims credible (or not). If the point is to debate the issue of light bulbs then it is not appropriate for the article.

Together, I think we'll get it right though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpky (talk • contribs)

The point of including NEMA in the article is that they have been quoted in reliable published sources as opponents of Bachmann's proposal. Wikipedia policy dictates that their views should be noted in the article as part of the debate on the proposal. By contrast, NEMA's mission statement is not discussed in reliable sources as relevant to Bachmann. The Popular Science article itself does not mention Bachmann. Hence, these are not appropriate sources for the article- their use constitutes editorial synthesis. Nevard (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michele Bachmann. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Muboshgu but you are the one doing all the reverts without using the talk page Dpky (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Both Muboshgu and I have posted to the talk page. And I note that the 3RR rule applies whether or not the talk page is used. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The time stamp of your posts to the talk page indicates it was done after many reversions by MuboshguDpky (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral language

In general, good editors avoid the use of the words "critics charge that", or similar - see WP:AWW. It's a fact that the farm got subsidies; let the readers decide if this is a problem. (And let them follow the link to the full article if they want to see what "critics" are "charging". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a fact has no clear relevance to a subject then should it be included at all? Is the paragraph about the controversy or about the farm? (I was considering suggesting it be moved to a different area as it seems to have nothing to do with family life)Dpky (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section probably should be retitled something like "Family life and businesses", but I don't think there is enough length to split it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 08:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. Her business life is intertwined with her family. But would such a title make that connection on the readers behalf? I come back to "why is the farm noteworthy". If the noteworthiness is only due to accusations of hypocrisy then maybe it belongs someplace else in the article along side of the policies it seems to conflict with.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]