User talk:Arbor8/archive1

Hogwash left on my talk page by Arbor832466

Editorial disagreements should not be called vandalism, and you should not call someone a vandal just because they make an edit you disagree with. If you do so, you may run afoul of the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy; you'd be better off adhering to Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks instead!--InaMaka (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Arbor832466 the following is a copy of your unhelpful comments:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review: Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal"--InaMaka (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me help out. The edit that I made was NOT vandalism. It was a valid edit. Now, you might not have agreed with the edit, but do not engage in behavior that involves untruthful statements.--InaMaka (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting unconstructive edits, with an explanation on the Talk page, is not a personal attack. Please assume good faith, focus comments on the articles, adhere to WP:Civility and refrain from speculating about other editors motivations, as you did with User:Gobonobo [1], User:Myownworst [2], and User:Stonemason89 [3]. Will also leave a note on your Talk page. Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's go over this one more time for your understanding. You don't seem to understand clearly what the rules of Wikipedia are. Let me assist you because I really want you to understand the Wikipedia policy that have violated twice. I realize that you must be an new editor because your edit count indicates that you have only made 44 edits total. Here we go: You called my edit vandalism. The fact that you called my edit vandalism--when it was clearly NOT vandalism--violates the policies of Wikipedia. Please review this page: Wikipedia Template condemning the exact behavior of Arbor832466. Also, I did not question your motives. What I did was tell you in no uncertain terms not to call my edit vandalism when it was not vandalism. Now, you might not like the policy of Wikipedia. You might not like how I said what I said. You might not like the substance of the edit for whatever reason, but that does not provide you the right to call my edit vandalism when it was not vandalism. That is called "Crying Vandalism" and it used to remove information that you don't like without having to go through the process of gaining consensus. You did not follow the proper procedure to obtain consensus. What you did was revert my edit and then call it vandalism when it was clearly not vandalism. Do NOT engage in a pattern of not telling the truth. You have now engaged in two false statements: (1) you called my edit vandalism when it was not vandalism and (2) you claim that I engaged in incivility when I dealt with Gobonobo misuse of the revert process and his misuse of the warning templates. Once again, I did not engage in incivility I told Gobonobo in no uncertain terms that his misuse of the revert process and his misuse of the warning templates violates Wikipedia policy and I told him that I would call him on it each and every time he does it. But this talk page is not about Gobonobo, but it is about you and your particular misuse of the warning templates. You called my edit--which was a valid edit--vandalism because you did not like my edit from an editorial point of view. It is as simple as that. Now, if you want to continue this discussion I'm willing to repeat for you over and over again how you are violating Wikipedia policy when you "Cry Vandalism" every time someone makes an edit that you don't agree with. I have reviewed your other edits to other articles and I will continue to do that in the future to look for signs of more attempts by you to call edits you don't like vandalism. I don't know how I can be more clear than I have been in this posting. But let me repeat for you one more time. You violate Wikipedia policy when you call a valid edit vandalism simply because you don't like the edit from an editorial point of view. Please stop this behavior immediately. You seem to provide general good work to the project, but you must stop calling edits you don't like vandalism when they are clearly NOT vandalism. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Boccieri, Hill, and Carney

I left a reply on the Hill talk page to discuss these matters further. I used the word "claim" in my original copy as one of the ways to attempt to impart neutrality. Was it my obligation to report on other issues related to the elections or just other opposing views on the issue at hand?

ProLifeDC (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was more worried about selection bias than your actual wording, which if I recall correctly was pretty even-handed. Basically, if we include one interest group's attack ad, then we should include every interest group's attack ads, as well as all interest groups ads in support of the candidate. It would just get kind of out of control. Not convinced it was notable enough to merit inclusion over any other ad/opposition. Does Americans United for Life have any kind of grading/rating system? We could maybe include something like, "Americans United for Life gives Congressman Smith and F rating, while Democrats for Life gives him an A." That way we could include the fact that there is disagreement without injecting either side's argument into the article. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dold - Eagle Forum endorsement discussion

Hi. I noticed you made a revision to the Bob Dold page regarding the Eagle Forum endorsement. Please join our discussion on the topic. Thank you. Cardinal91 (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My motivation

Dear Arbor832466: Please do not comment on my "motivations" at any other time in the future. You do not know what my motivations are AND your comments about my "motivation" can be construed as a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. Please focus your comments on improving articles. You do not comment at all on how you would improve the article about Stephene Moore all you did was inappropriate make wild claims about my motivation. Please stop.--InaMaka (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I do not, unfortunately, possess any special telekinetic abilities. However, it doesn't take supernatural powers to parse out the bias behind "She's really not qualified to be a Congressman, but fortunately she will get soundly beaten in November" [4] which speaks for itself. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, do not engage in personal attacks. Also, if you are concerned about the article then you need to discuss it there.--InaMaka (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Trying to create an archive here and I think I... broke it. Can somebody lend me a hand? Arbor832466 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Arbor832466, what exactly is your problem with the archive. Is it because it's not showing up in the archive box? Tdubell (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your response. I manually moved old stuff over to the archive (not sure if I was supposed to do that or not) but mostly am worried (1) that some image alignment stuff seems to be messed up up top and (2) not sure if I did it right so that it will auto archive in the future. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, your manual archive works, and the image alignment can be sorted out. However, about the auto archiving, you will have to wait at least a day to make sure it auto archives right. If it doesn't then we'll see how to fix that. You could try reading this if you already have not: Archiving How To. Good luck! Tdubell (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just going to do it manually for now. Going to removed the help tag as well. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Great! Glad to be of help. Tdubell (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Billy Coyle for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Billy Coyle, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve King petition

Since this affects multiple pages, I'm not sure where to post it, so I'm going to put it here and put links on the talk pages of the affected articles. I've noticed that user [[5]] has added some version of the following to 10+ articles about members of Congress who voted against the Affordable Health Care for America Act:

"However, he has not signed the discharge petition circulated by Iowa Republican Steve King calling for a complete repeal of the law. "

I'm not convinced that not signing a petition circulated by a member of the opposing party is notable, and adding seems to violate WP:UNDUE. Now, if a particular member had publicly advocated repeal and then did not sign the petition, that would be notable, but as far as I can tell, that is not the case here. Hundreds if not thousands of petitions are circulated around Congress every year -- why should this one be included in members' articles while all others are excluded?

Would love to reach a consensus on this. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Allow me Thephalanx to explain, via rebuttal.

"Hundreds if not thousands of petitions are circulated around Congress every year -- why should this one be included in members' articles while all others are excluded?"

It is important to understand that a discharge petition is not mere petition - it is a rarely used legislative tool. The King petition, which happens to be bipartisan, is one of the most notable discharge petitions in recent memory. It is even featured in Wikipedia's page on discharge petitions. Clearly, this is not a garden variety petition.

"I'm not convinced that not signing a petition circulated by a member of the opposing party is notable..."

This petition is bipartisan. Missouri Democrat Gene Taylor signed on in September.

"...if a particular member had publicly advocated repeal and then did not sign the petition, that would be notable..."

I agree, that would certainly be notable. Reps. Marshal and McIntyre are good examples of that behavior. However, it goes beyond that. The petition has played a prominent role shaping the news coverage surrounding the future of the new health care law. It seems perfectly reasonable to link that effort to those Members who opposed the law in March.

"...adding seems to violate WP:UNDUE"

By now, I hope it is clear that this petition is neither a fringe petition, nor representative of a small minority of Congress. It has received bipartisan support and significant media coverage. In the world of discharge petitions, this one is an anomaly. The statement I have been including into various pages is innocuous and factual.

I think we should be able to come to an agreement on this. Looking forward to it. Thephalanx (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'd be more convinced of the notability of the petition if you provided citations of independent media coverage of either a particular member's declining to sign it (in the case of those who have not called for repeal) or of a member supporting repeal (who has not signed the petition). Failing that, I'd say that this belongs on Steve King and maybe Affordable Health Care for America Act but not elsewhere. Simply being (barely) bipartisan, or even receiving broad support, does not make it independently notable to every member who does or does not sign it. Arbor832466 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your point, if you are focusing solely on the petition without any context. And in fairness, many of the pages do not have sufficient context on anything, let alone the health care bill. Perhaps we can meet in the middle. Allow me to suggest the following: 1) creation of a page on this particular discharge petition, which will outline major media coverage, local coverage, etc; and 2) a more thorough build out on each Member's page, including the 6 Republicans who have not signed, that explains their position on PPACA, post vote comments, any relevant media reference to repeal and mention the petition in the context that other Members who oppose PPACA have supported repeal.

I get the impression we will not agree on the significance of the petition in a vacuum, but hopefully this road map will alleviate any concerns you may have.

Thephalanx (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't buy it for a second. The petition is not at all notable. Perhaps if a petition had an article then it could be mentioned in these biographies. Perhaps also if there wasn't a clear bias to the edits. No, I'm pretty convinced that all of User:Thephalanx's edits should be reverted.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 02:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is significant media coverage, I can see creating a stand-alone page for the petition, but in the absence of specific coverage about Congressman Smith's support of or opposition to the petition, adding mention of it to his page is WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every legislator's position on every topic. Arbor832466 (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like we mostly agree. Yes?

Thephalanx (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It is my feeling that mention of the King petition does not belong on individual member articles except in the case where there has been independent media coverage of that specific member signing or not signing it. Is that how you see it as well? Arbor832466 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, having not heard a viable reason why the Steve King petition should be mentioned in 20+ members' articles, I'm going to remove it per WP:Notability. If anyone can find independent sources covering a specific member's position on the repeal petition, feel free to re-add. In the absence of that, it does not belong. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not

add your "personal analysis" to my page. --Ak169808 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC) K. Thanks

Hey there. I wasn't adding personal analysis, just explaining why I reverted your edits. Hope that clears things up! Arbor832466 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Jim Renacci

Why do you keep putting editing the Jim Renacci Page? First of all, what you are saying is very one sided so if you are going to post something, I would appreciate it if you got all of the facts before posting. I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I would be happy to discuss this further with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdogg654 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I certainly don't mean to come off as overly aggressive. The content I'm adding to Jim Renacci is well sourced and independently verifiable, so please don't remove it. You can discuss why you think it is problematic on Talk:Jim Renacci and hopefully you and I, along with other Wikipedians, can come to a consensus.

I'm going to add some info and links to your Talk page to help you get started on Wikipedia. Especially important to note is WP:SOAP and WP:CONFLICT. I'll also include some info about Wikipedia markup -- basically how you format links and stuff on Wikipedia. For example, if you put four tildes (~) in a row, it will auto-generate your signature. Hope this helps! Arbor832466 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Based on this comment [6] it seems you're having trouble maintaining neutrality on the topic of Jim Renacci. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:CONFLICT. I'll also leave a note on your talk page. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are also ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdogg654 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeryzeykydd

I saw that you've been adding prod warning to Jerzeykydd's talk page. Just to let you know, that editor has been banned until November 3. See his talk page if you are curious. Thanks for prodding those articles, I have been meaning to do it.--TM 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that explains why I haven't heard back! Just trying to do some cleanup around here :) Arbor832466 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My motivation

Please do not comment on my motivations or who you believe I am "working for" as you did in this edit summary [7]. You do not know what my motivations are, and your comments can be construed as a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. Please focus your comments on improving articles. Have a great day!! Arbor832466 (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not comment on you. I referred to a generic Wikipedian. Do NOT accuse me of something I did not do. Also, I have, after this inappropriate comment reviewed all of your edits to the Renacci article, and cosidering the short time between now and election day, it is clear that comments above about your inability to maintain a NPOV is probably true. You should probably take a time out from working on the biographies of Congressional candidates until you have a better understanding of NPOV.--InaMaka (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I go to great lengths to make fair, thoroughly sourced edits. If you disagree with a particular edit, please address it at the page in question. I take offense at your suggestion that I should take a "time out." Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You can be offended all you want, it is your right. But when you put information in the bio of a living person (i.e., Renacci article) which is highly negative (commentaries about his enviromental record) that are NOT, in any way, supported by reliable sources then you violating the rules of Wikipedia, specifically NPOV and BLP. I had to remove all of that unsourced biased information because it was very damaging information. Also, you repeatedly reverted another editor who was trying to stop you from making such personally damaging edits to a politician that is currently in an election campaign for Congress. Based upon these edits, yes, I think you should take a break from the biographies of Congressional candidates until you understand the rules of NPOV and BLP better.--InaMaka (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting vs. Merging articles

I am assuming good faith on your part, but...if a politician is only notable for an election, we do not delete his or her article. The article is merged into the election article, and the politician article is then redirected to the election article. I have now done this with the Scott Harper article. I consider any efforts to destroy the 'audit trail' of information to be prima facie evidence of partisanship, particularly when done in the month before an election. I suggest you change your other recommendations for similar deletions. Flatterworld (talk)

My mistake! Yes, I intended to suggest a merge. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Merge#List of merger templates. For an example, see what I did in United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 1 and Virginia's 1st congressional district election, 2010. All you have to do is put the correct templates in the 'from' and 'to' articles, and then click on the 'discuss' link (which points to the same place from each article) to post your reason. If the merge is agreed to (which might be after the election), do a complete cut and paste of the entire article for pass one, then fix it up on pass two. That creates a better 'audit trail' in case the article ever needs to be recreated. Then change the article to be a redirect. You can use Scott Harper as an example. If you have any more questions, let me know. Flatterworld (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See Maine gubernatorial election, 2010 for an example I just did for two Independent candidates. (I've already forgotten the candidate names, but see their articles too, and the comment on the election Talk page.) Flatterworld (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I got em all, but I'll double check. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you have. You attempted to delete at least ten Republican articles about challengers just this morning. I don't know how many other ones you have done in the past. And in the case of Reid Ribble and Stephen Fincher (to name just two) you have attempted to delete articles about candidates that are AHEAD in there races and they are getting national (and sometimes international) media attention. The Memphis Commercial Appeal has noted that the London-based The Economist has even written an article about Fincher's campaign and the election in NW Tennessee. Please slow down your attempts to delete so many articles. I have stated this over and over again.--InaMaka (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I also nominated a number of Democrats, although admittedly fewer Ds than Rs because this cycle fewer Democratic challengers exist. Regarding Fincher and Ribble, while they may well be notable, polling data are not sufficient criteria under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. You admit right here that they are notable. Since you believe they are notable then there is not reason to nominate them for deletion. You need to work to make the articles better. It is clear you don't get it. YOU are supposed to work in good faith. YOU are supposed to attempt to find reliable sources to make the articles better. YOU are just marking everything "DELETE" and if someone objects you either revert them or you tell them to go put the information in yourself. YOU need to go back and fix ALL of the articles that you marked for deletion. If you don't then you are working in bad faith. YOU know where all of the articles are that you inappropriately marked for deletion. Once again, Fincher is being followed by the national media and the international media. Please see: London Economist article. So your flippant comment above about polling data does not cut it. You need to go back to ALL 20 of the articles you marked for deletion and fix them, at least mark them as "merge" since you obviously don't want to review each article individually. You are the one that started this morning to mark 20 articles for deletion of Republican challengers. As I have told you before you need to edit in good faith and that means you need to attempt to "preserve information" and you should not mark everything in your sights for deletion. You did not even comment on 18 of the articles that you marked for deletion. Go back to them and fix them now.--InaMaka (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I was attempting to deal with articles covering Republican, Democratic and Green party candidates. I have acknowledged that I was using the wrong template and have gone back and fixed, I believe, every instance. I was not previously aware of the coverage you mention above or obviously I would have added them. Please cool down. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as your edit summary [8], I didn't "attempt" to "destroy" any articles. Please follow Flatterworld's lead and assume good faith. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbor832466, You need to use both the 'merge to' and the 'merge from' templates. I just updated the Texas District 29 as an example. Back to candidate levels. imo, and there isn't any set-in-concrete rule about this, we have 'no-hopers', candidates who might swing an election even though they have no chance of winning, and those who might actually win. (In each, some are notable in their own right, some aren't. That's life.) What I generally do for the first is to include the urls for campaign site and Project Vote Smart on the candidate's line in the election article (which already includes the OpenSecrets link, or at least should, along with various others). There usually isn't anything else available, other than on partisan blogs which we don't reference. The third will generally get their own article, as in that case there's plenty of third-party coverage. However, non-partisan coverage (such as PVS and the FEC) MUST be added, as we're not running a campaign brochure service. See Template:CongLinks . Adding supportive material cherry-picked from the news media isn't enough for an encyclopedia article. The second category is the gray area. If only notable for the election itself, imo it's best to include all the info (including the infobox) for the candidate in the election article, and redirecting to that from the candidate's name. I have yet to see one of those articles that's actually anything more than a brief summary of the campaign site. Third-party refs are generally refs quoting from the campaign site, so it's circular. We now a month before the elections. InaMaka, you're correct about deletes, but it's not Arbor832466's job (or mine) to fix all the five-second fluff articles someone else created. There's been plenty of time for those articles to be improved. At this point in time, I support merges. Which is what Arbor832466 is trying to do. (And yes, this happens every election cycle, just with different Wikipedians. ;-) ) Flatterworld (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I see what you did. Will loop back and add the "merge froms" where I already have "merge tos" Arbor832466 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Except you used the 'merge to' template again, instead of the 'merge from' template. ;-) I fixed them, just letting you know for future efforts. Flatterworld (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah crap! Thanks. Will caffeinate BEFORE editing in the future :) Arbor832466 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

btw - you should also give the reason for suggesting the merge under the 'Discuss' link. I'm not sure the best way to handle this moving forward. I doubt the articles which consist of only the campaign site material (no other external links such as FEC, Project Vote Smart, etc.) will be improved before the election, as the Wikipedian who created them has been blocked until then. As an example, I just redirected the Larry Bucshon article to the election article, but left the 'merge' messages in place (and a message on the merge's Talk page) to make it easier if someone decides to improve it between now and the election. We should probably wait a week on the others of that sort. I'm leaving the candidate articles which have those additional external links as is. Flatterworld (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done that on a few but I need to go back and do the others. Will do that today and then hold off for a bit to see if others want to weigh in. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

InaMaka, you need to refrain from personal attacks [[9]]. Thank you. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. It is a fact that you made up a rule about being ahead in the election is not enough to justify an article. That is simply not true. And I am going to point out when you make up things. Also, this is out of control. You and Flatterworld have taken upon yourself to merge articles, such as the article about Larry Bucshon. This is censorship, pure and simple and it will stop.--InaMaka (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that this is out of control. Accusing me of 'partisan hackery' is most certainly a personal attack, particularly when I am doing my best to make good faith edits. Where should we find a third party who can intervene? Arbor832466 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely we should. You and Flatterworld deleted the article about Larry Bucshon which was partisan hackery in the worst form. Someone needs to know about it beside me. It is embarassing. Neither you or Flatterworld have the right to just delete whole article arbitrarily. It is wrong. It violates not only the spirit of Wikipedia but it is censorship. I have pointed you to the rules about it. Wikipedia is NOT censored. Larry Bucshon is winning the race. HotLine on Call, part of National Journal is stating that Bucshon is so far ahead that the DNC has cut back on spending because of Bucshon's lead. You and Flatterworld should not be destroying whole articles. It is partisan hackery. Stop it. Go get someone. I don't care. You and Flatterworld are not going to eliminate articles about Republicans 25 days before an election--especially if these Republican challengers in are one of most watched races in the U.S. Go to anyone you want to. My statements stand for themselves. Your edits and Flatterworld's edits violate the rules and the sprit of Wikipedia and they cannot be justified.--InaMaka (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made comments at Talk: Larry Bucshon regarding InaMaka's unfounded personal attacks. Look. Jerzykydd ran around creating lots and lots of five-second fluff articles about Republican candidates shortly before the election. I started out fixing them, adding the usual nonpartisan links to Project Vote Smart, the FEC and Open Secrets - but he was creating them faster than I could fix them, as my efforts actually took time and effort as opposed to cutting and pasting from campaign websites as he did. He's been blocked until the election. It's not 'partisanship' or 'censorship' or 'hackery' to merge articles which never should have been created in the first place into the election articles where they belong. (Note: I did not delete the Larry Bucshon article, but redirected it, leaving a full audit trail even though there was nothing encyclopedic to merge that wasn't already in the election article.) These candidates, like it or not, aren't notable other than for the event (aka the election). Wikipedia is clear that means they're included in the event article, and don't get their own article. I have restored the Merge request to the Larry Bucshon article (which you apparently deleted in a fit of pique) because of that reason. Them's the rules, and insulting me doesn't change them. Please reread the section above on Deleting vs. Merging Articles. Flatterworld (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

InaMaka, see United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#District 13 for an example of a merge from a (decently written yet still non-notable) candidate article (a DEMOCRAT you will note) to the event (election) article. Flatterworld (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Flatterworld, thank you for all time you've dedicated to dealing with this. For the sake of my own blood pressure, and because clearly nothing productive is going to come of it, I've decided to not engage with InaMaka going forward. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark_Critz webpage

Arbor832466: I noticed you deleted the reference to Critz' vote for adjournment because "adjournment is not a notable enough vote to get this much weight". Normally, I would agree with you an adjournment vote does not carry enough weight to be notable. However, this event was covered by every major national news media ranging from left to center to right and all over the blogosphere and internet (I could further document). Considering Critz' short tenure in office, it is perhaps the single most discussed vote he has taken and because of that significance I felt it extremely significant as a voting record. Although it is a bit awkwardly placed (perhaps it should go in its own "Significant Votes" section rather than position, it seems the way the page is now organized, it fits best there. It is with this rationale I have restored the reference to the adjournment vote. Reidwiki (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki

Yeah, I see your point. Was there any coverage of Critz specifically voting for (or against, I don't remember) adjournment? That would add context. But generally I think the problem is that there's nothing else there, not that the adjournment vote itself is irrelevant. I'll leave it in try to find some other issue positions or votes I can add in as well, so the adjournment vote is not so lonely. Arbor832466 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbor832466: Not being hugely familiar with the district's media sources, I don't know of specific Critz coverage. The PA GOP did issue a Press Release Oct 1st http://www.pagop.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=4754 attacking Critz specifically on the issue but I'd prefer a neutral citation for wikipedia. On the other spectrum, I came across an anonymous blogger at http://mark28.blogspot.com/ (CAUTION: THE BLOG DROPS F-BOMBS) whose Sept 30th entry "What Good Are They?" (a self-described "hardcore Democratic partisan" bagging the Blue Dogs) help provide anchoring that the issue evoked strong feelings across the spectrum. I agree with you the reference is lonely and needs some company; the only other major piece of legislation I can think of for the House Critz voted on was the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which had its final vote this past July. (Critz voted against http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll413.xml). What do you think? Reidwiki (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki

I think just the plain roll call votes are better than partisan blogs on either side. I'll look into local media coverage of his adjournment vote. I agree that the wall street reform bill was a notable vote which belongs in there, as well as maybe the Small Business Jobs Act, which I believe Critz supported. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbor832466: I cleaned up the entire section to make it more concise and focusing on the most important votes by Critz. The references to the Small Buisness vote was to a Critz press release and violates WP:SOAP in allowing Critz to soapbox through wikipedia. The reference to bills introduced by Critz also violated WP:SOAP but also is information not relevant to Wikipedia as with the thousands of bills introduced into Congress, only bills that capture major national debate or passage should have any introduction credit mention in Wikipedia. I furthermore remove the old lines beginning "Critz's profile is very similar to that of his late boss..." not because I disagree factually but because they are uncited and such read as opinion. I think you will find the new edits quite...encyclopedic. Reidwiki (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki

Okay, well, I made an effort. Since we can't round out the section, I'm going to blank it entirely for now. The adjournment vote shouldn't stand alone per WP:UNDUE. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbor832466: First, please, your efforts and edits are thoughtful and appreciated; it's nice to feel like we are providing checks and balances and at least I feel like working together to enhance WP. Many, but not all Members of Congress have a section on how they have voted on legislation (see Chaka_Fattah and Jim_Gerlach both have political sections). You will notice that I didn't leave the adjournment vote alone, but rather kept the 2 most debated/discussed votes across political spectrum Critz has had in his short time in office. I think maybe you feel a need to "fill it up" with stuff when I would counter filling it up would be WP:UNDUE. Leaving it in helps guide the reader to Critz's position on these 2 important issues. My feeling is as time goes on, the section could be filled up with other important votes. For example, perhaps Congress will tackle a major immigration bill or deal directly with tax cuts. Having a small section isn't a bad thing, but rather the appropriate thing. Furthermore, I think that doing WP:UNDUE on an entire section when it is weighted appropriately in accordance with Critz' time in office would discourage submitters from compiling research to add to WP even when it is only a small compilation. The only thing I am struggling with is the title "Notable Votes" which I am thinking to change back to "Political Positions" which seems to be more in uniform with other pages. Reidwiki (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki

The votes I added, if I remember correctly, were bills that Critz had actually sponsored. My reasoning was that while the votes weren't notable generally, they were notable in regard to him because he was the sponsor. Still, I can see your perspective as well. I suppose the lack of notable votes since Critz was elected in May says more about the efficacy of Congress than anything else :). Regardless, you are clearly a very thoughtful editor, and I hope I didn't come across as too harsh. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbor832466: A BIG LOL on your "efficacy of Congress" comment. Personally, I don't feel like you've been harsh, but rather quite respectful. I'm glad we both took the time to explain our edits because it certainly made me think about different perspectives which is extremely important. We clearly have had some differences of opinion which isn't necessarily a bad thing at all and have both worked hard to keep the respect up while trying to keep this a good encyclopedia. Also found this on THOMAS which lists all the bills Congress has sponsored in the current 111th session: http://www.thomas.gov/home/ViewList.php?n=Member&c=111 Critz has sponsored 6 bills which strikes me as rather typical for a Congress member of such short tenure. Elsewhere THOMAS counts 6,265 total bills for the 111th session of Congress, so sponsoring a bill is rather in and of itself not a notable event. Reidwiki (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki

Response to your question

I responded to your question here: Response.--InaMaka (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I discussed your editing in another spot today. The comments are here: Response.--InaMaka (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You can find my response here. Best, Arbor832466 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dold Residency Question

Arbor, I saw you had some input on previous Bob Dold discussion. Care to weigh in on the latest discussion over the residency controversy? I'd like to hear your thoughts on notability, relevance and documentation related to the residency matter especially in light of Public Figures. Cheers. Cardinal91 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I will check it out in a few. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorsements

Endorsements are certainly acceptable in candidate articles, as long as they're dated and footnoted to a reliable source, not simply the candidate's campaign site or such. The most reliable source is the person or group's own website. For instance, newspaper endorsements are footnoted to the specific editorial explaining the endorsement. Flatterworld (talk)

Jon Barela

(moved this over from my user page)

I hope that this is the correct way to contact you If not, please forgive me and tell the the correct way.

Again, thank you for your help. I did add the xkcd tag and also the Firefox tag to my talk site as well. Now I'm trying to figure out why the image which worked fine yesterday is failing today. There is definitely a learning curve. --RedSunBlueSkies (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Roy Herron

Thankee kindly! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (born in Jackson)

Edit Summary

Hi, InaMaka. Can you clarify for me what you meant by this edit summary? [10] Arbor832466 (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, InaMaka, please watch the tone in your edit summaries [11] [12] Arbor832466 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to watch anything. You need to learn to find citations instead of just removing information you don't like.--InaMaka (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Frank Guinta and User:76.19.249.241

Hi, Arbor832466. I notice that you restored material to the article Frank Guinta after some section-blanking by an IP, User 76.19.249.241. Some of the material you restored was acceptable, but other sections were poorly sourced, citing what appear to be blogs and political attack sites as references. These should never have been permitted into the article to begin with, and the editor was well within his or her rights to remove this material in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, in particular the section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. I agree that the wholesale section-blanking was not appropriate, possibly even tendentious, but please be sure that you are not restoring WP:BLP violations by wholesale reverting. It would have been better to review the IP editor's rationale and evaluate each section on its own merits rather than restoring the material in its entirety. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again -- I've now gone back and looked at the links again in greater detail and don't see anything wrong with them. Don't know what I thought I saw first time around, but whatever it was, I was wrong and gave the sources too cursory a look. My mistake. Cheers! -- Rrburke (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No prob! Always appreciate a second set of eyes. :) Arbor832466 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see now what concerned me: it was a passage that cited http://www.bluehampshire.com/diary/10985/frank-guinta-serial-misleader as a reference. Another editor appears to have removed it. The rest appear to be mainstream sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Gibson (New York Congressional candidate)

Hey!

I notice you keep editing the the page Chris Gibson (New York Congressional candidate). You complain that a specific portion violates NPOV, which I don't see but since I wrote the most of the article I'm hardly unbiased on that front and I am more than open to criticism. However I'd appreciate if rather than simply blanking it (in a way that detracts from the articles quality) you would work with me to point out what you say is NPOV.

Thanks,

Theeagleman (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this

He is nonetheless likely to face a tough election where the incumbent has a considerable cash advantage and is widely seen as moderate within the district (a crucial factor in the Republican leaning district) despite a score of only 11 out of 100 from the American Conservative Union and having changed his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's polarizing health care legislation.

could possibly be interpreted as encyclopedic. It's just analysis ("is widely seen," "a crucial factor," "polarizing") and information that doesn't belong in the Gibson article (Murphy's ACU rating, Murphy's health care vote).

I'm going to remove it again because it is clearly inappropriate, and link this conversation on the talk page. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a discussion of the race that is the entire reason for him being notable? It is a brief and sourced discussion of the election and its issues. Again, if you have improvements you'd like to make by all means lets talk about them. I'm going to revert your reversion and open a section to discuss a way to improve the section.

Theeagleman (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Frank Guinta and Yudanashi

Hey Arbor832466. I copy and pasted the wrong link. It should have been *Profile from Fights for Jobs pro-business group. When I realized the error and went to fix it, the page locked me out. Can you add it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudanashi (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it, way to be on top of the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudanashi (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The external links Yudanashi has been adding to Frank Guinta and elsewhere all go to a political website maintained by BIPAC, a group for which he created a very promotional article. I can't edit Frank Guinta myself but I think these links go to uninformation political promotion that hardly meets the standard for good WP:EL. Sharktapus (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was noticing the same thing. If you want to remove them, or initiate a discussion about removing them, I would totally support that. Meanwhile, I will take a look at the BIPAC article itself. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

polls, forecasts, etc.

The basic Wikipedia policy is to not repeat information verbatim in multiple articles, but to put it in the most relevant article and then include a 'summary style' statement and a link from related articles. In this case, the most relevant article is the election article(s). With polls being updated regularly, we don't want them to be out of sync and force readers to hunt for them all over the place. Most of the election articles have tables for poll results, which makes them easy to read as they all follow the same format. Flatterworld (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Freeze request

Because of the sudden surge in the past couple of days in deletes/redirects - with or without discussions but all without merges - I've requested a FREEZE on this (please read it) until after the election. Please check articles you're aware of, as they still display with a 'blue'link'. The deletes are being done by people I don't recognize being involved in any actual article work. Flatterworld (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Will check it out, thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Dan Benishek

You appear to be editing the Dan Benishek article. I would like you to read WP:3RR and note that WP:SOCKPUPPETs should not be used to avoid 3RR. At this point I am making no accusations, just posting the same message on all editors' talk pages. Per WP:BRD, a controversial edit should be discussed on the talk page, not become subject to an WP:EDITWAR. I have notified the BLP noticeboard here and encourage you to join the conversation at Talk:Dan Benishek. Thank you, Mechanical digger (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Honest mistakes are not instances of vandalism

There was no need for you to accuse me of vandalism simply because I made an honest (and quite small) mistake. The mistake could have been corrected with a routine explanation and it could have been done so without an accusation of vandalism. There was nothing in my actions to suggest vandalism. Vandalism is the malicious altering of an item. A mistake is not necessarily malicious. So please stick to normal reasons for reverting edits without accusing people of vandalism right off the bat. I do not yet know how to sign these items so this will be unsigned but hopefully the system will pick it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.187.133 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not harass people on their user talk pages

I have the right to delete unnecessary and false (accusing me of vandalism where none occurred) claims on my user page. Please do not attempt to by proxy reinstate them by "reminding" me that there is a permanent record. I am by no means an expert at this but I know that. Your "reminder" was a transparent attempt to re-state your opinion of vandalism on my user page where again no vandalism ever occurred, just an honest mistake. Please do not relist items on my page that I clearly wanted removed (and had the right to do so). Again I don;t yet know how to sign these but plan on learning soon. Again hopefully the system will take care of it.

Edit summaries, again

InaMaka, some of your edit summaries (eg [13], [14], [15]) raise serious concerns about your ability to edit in a neutral manner, particularly shortly before an election. Please dial back the partisanship or consider a break from editing. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. You are bringing up edit summaries that you have pointed out in at least three different times--one made on 20 Sept 10. Really? 20 Sept 2010? You have to go back that far. Also, Southerland is winning. I stated a fact, not an opinion.--InaMaka (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would second the comment of person above me on this list. Also, I'm not taking a break from editing and I'm not going dial back anything.--InaMaka (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Chris Gibson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Gibson (New York politician). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. 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. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Theeagleman (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also reported your violation of WP:3RR see [16]

Theeagleman (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Chris Gibson (New York politician). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 18:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arbor8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I maintain that my edits to Chris Gibson were a good faith attempt to quickly remedy a NPOV problem on the article belonging to a candidate who is up for election in less than 48 hours -- hence my acting more swiftly than I otherwise would have (although I also engaged in discussion on the Talk page). However, if it would make a difference I will refrain from editing the Chris Gibson article in the future. I would also point out, while still assuming good faith, that user Theeagleman who reported the 3RR has a history of exclusively making two kinds of edits, those that make Chris Gibson appear in a favorable light and those that make his opponent, Scott Murphy appear in a negative one. I look forward to your speedy reply. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Clear edit-war. Both of you are now blocked for it. That's a fantastic way to support your candidate by not being able to fix last minute issues. You have also proven why mere candidates should not have Wikipedia articles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.