User talk:Corbridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moved Comment

• Please stop editing my articles. this is supposed to be a forum that anyone can edit. if you want to edit things, go and edit your articles. (Re: Allen West article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.244.60 (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Regarding this and other reference formatting changes, do you have some consensus to make this wholesale change?  Frank  |  talk  16:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making a wholesale change. I'm just changing the people that have a long list of references, in an attempt to shorten the articles.--Corbridge (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your recent contributions, I see essentially nothing other than these changes. I also see at least two objections, shown by reverts of the edits. (Also, no need to duplicate any response on my talk page; I'm watching here.)  Frank  |  talk  17:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is true.--Corbridge (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Both objections are from the same person.--Corbridge (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So that makes it OK to ignore the objection?  Frank  |  talk  17:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Please do not jump to conclusions. Please do not create a straw-man to attack. I am willing to talk. Please be reasonable.--Corbridge (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't say that, and I'm not putting words into your mouth or jumping to conclusions. What did happen is that I raised the concern here and your first response was to deny making a wholesale change and keep on making the same change on more articles. After I pressed a bit, you have told me "This is true" and "Both objections are from the same person", neither of which addresses the question, which remains: do you have consensus to make this wholesale change? I don't need to jump to any conclusions; your actions are visible in your contribution history.  Frank  |  talk  17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to discuss how you see the situation versus how I see the situation because we obviously do not agree. You can claim many times that you did not attempt to put words in my mouth, but you did. Now, I can't change your opinion on that and you can't change my opinion either. And either way it does not deal with the issue at hand. You could have simply repeated the question if you believed that I did not answer your original question. You did not have to ask, in a sarcastic manner, if "that makes it OK to ignore the objection?" Your sarcasm does not add to an environment where we have a pleasant conversation on the topic. It only creates tension and unpleasantness. There is a policy in Wikipedia to assume "good faith". I know you are an admin so you already know about that policy, but your sarcastic question does not lend itself to the belief that you find that policy important. The simple answer to your original question is I don't have a consensus. I also do not believe that I am making "wholesale" changes. I am using a tool in the Wikipedia tool box, "references-small" to make certain articles (articles that have a long list of references) smaller to assist in making the articles shorter and more accessible. So I can see from your sarcastic question and your defensive response you are hellbent to beat this editor into the ground. So before you block me or ban me from the universe let me ask you to please be more polite and attempt to be more civil with your fellow editors. Ok, I've said it. Go ahead and block me or whatever. I know that there is nothing I can do to stop you. Your sarcastic question--which attempted to put words in my mouth--and your overly defensive response make it clear that you are going to throw down the hammer. I hope, and truly mean this, your blocking me makes your day better for you.--Corbridge (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly I'm aware of assuming good faith, which is why I haven't reverted a single one of these changes, nor have I threatened to block you, either for the changes or for whatever you're saying here (which is far from block-worthy anyway). I opened a discussion. We disagree on the description of the exact path which followed, but I doubt you'll find any evidence that I am the sort of admin who is hellbent to beat you into the ground. And, if you believe that "this is true" and "both objections are from the same person." are somehow not sarcastic, we may have a difficult gap to bridge.  Frank  |  talk  17:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that I was sincere when I stated, "This is true." I know that I was sincere when I stated, "both objections are from the same person." These were simple statements of fact. Nothing more. Also, you don't know me or anything about me. We have had a couple of short responses to each other. You have seriously mis-read my simple statements of fact. It was NOT intended as sarcastic in any way. You should have given me the benefit of the doubt. It is as simple as that. Please don't use my simple statements of fact to justify your statement of "So that makes it OK to ignore the objection?" Your statement was not necessary. As I stated earlier you could have simply re-asked the question. It is as simple as that.--Corbridge (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think my question was no less necessary than the statement it responded to. And I did ask the question more than once before you answered it.  Frank  |  talk  21:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to wrap up this pointless discussion. You did not ask the question twice. The discussion is quoted right above us word for word, as part of the edit chain, and there is no indication that you asked the question twice. You asked the question once and you made a statement in the second posting. You did not repeat the question. Simply calling the second posting a question does not make it one. I can call an automobile a duck all day long, but that does not make it a duck. It is clear that you will refuse to see that you comment was inappropriate--even though it was clearly inappropriate. That is part of the Wikipeidan admin code: Never let them see you sweat and never, never admit that you might be wrong.--Corbridge (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've bolded the second instance of the question above for you. Without sweating.  Frank  |  talk  22:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Which happened after you had already asked the question in issue. Let's just drop it. Another thing about Wikipedian admins is that they will never, ever drop a point--even if facts and logic stand in the way.--Corbridge (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's unfair. Admins are not allowed to use their tools in content disputes- full stop, and I frequently walk away from content disputes when the situation demands. That doesn't prevent me from advising warring parties to seek dispute resolution, or from offering an opinion. Admins are not "super-editors" with magical powers that are not open to question; they may be more experienced than some other editors, but they do not get a free ride on that account. Policies, guidelines and consensus override any admin's personal view- or strongly should. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I stated my opinion and my opinion is based upon personal experience. Yes, admins are not supposed to use their tools in content disputes, but they do and that is a fact. Whether you believe that is true is irrelevant, it simply is. Also, I have not stated that Frank has used his tools to hammer me here with his opinion. So there is nothing, absolutely nothing "unfair" about what I have stated. However, I have pointed out that Frank did ask an inappropriate comment to me before he repeated the question. Now, I pointed out, quite correctly I might add, that there are admins who would have hammered me just because I had the temerity to point out the, to use your word, the "unfairness" of his asking an inappropriate question, which attempted to put words in my mouth. And there are admins who would have hammered me for pointing out that his mis-reading of my two simple statements of fact were NOT, in any way, sarcastic. So the endless debate about the misuse of admin power goes on.--Corbridge (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In what way? You're the only one citing "misuse of admin power" when in fact, none such has occurred, unless you can cite diffs, and both of us here are discussing on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which bind all of us, rather than using admin tools (and it is "tools", not "powers"). Rodhullandemu 03:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are three more (from another, different editor). Including the one mentioned above, and my discussion with you here...that's two different editors who appear to disagree, and one who is questioning the changes.  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What are your concerns?--Corbridge (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that you are changing formatting on articles that you deem to have a "long list of references, in an attempt to shorten the articles". I don't see how this does that, since of course all the text remains in the article. The effect I see on my computer, and with which some others have apparently agreed, is that the references become too small to read comfortably without taking extra action. I don't see any attempt at discussion in any forum about such a change. I may have missed it; that's why I started by asking if this is a change you've gotten consensus for.  Frank  |  talk  17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

On my computer, I don't see the problem.--Corbridge (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

However, it might be a problem on other people's computers.--Corbridge (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

But I must note that on my computer it does make the references section shorter.--Corbridge (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's in dispute. However, my main complaint is that it also makes it unreadable.  Frank  |  talk  17:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So where does this lead to? I guess I will stop making the references small because you and few others believe that the size makes them "unreadable." I know if I continue to do it then as an admin you will stop me--even though I believe that the smaller versions save room. I also believe that just because a small number of people complain does not mean that the vast majority of editors have any problem with the smaller size. I also know that the smaller size is a tool in the Wikipedia toolbox but I will choose not to use the tool because a small number of editors have asked me to stop. And I will state one more time that I WAS NOT making a "wholesale" change because my focus was individuals that have a large number of references.--Corbridge (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, the assumption that I will stop you is not supported by any evidence of my past behavior as an admin (or otherwise). This is intended to be a discussion. Ultimately what I might do if I really felt it was inappropriate and something "needed to be done" would be to bring it to the wider community for discussion. This has happened before, more than once, but typically on bot-related edits rather than manual edits. Still - I'm not going to tell you "do it my way or I'll block you" - that's not what Wikipedia is about, and even if you show me evidence that it is about that in some places, it's certainly not how I operate around here. Again - note that I haven't undone any of your edits. If I thought you were violating some policy, I would have told you to stop. I don't know of any policy that you're violating, nor do I think it's disruptive, but I still think the change doesn't help the articles. That's not a reason to block you, so please understand that's not where I'm coming from. I would add this: the style appears in the stylesheet, so at some point, somebody thought it was a reasonable thing to do. I may disagree as to its utility, but that doesn't make me right and you wrong...and even if it did, it's not a reason to worry about me blocking you. But some other editors appear to feel more strongly about this; don't be surprised if you hear more about it if you continue.  Frank  |  talk  21:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Re James Callaghan, it's usual to have only one "References" section in an article. Please see WP:MOS. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--Corbridge (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is an issue of Wikipedia style. First, consistency of formatting between articles should be encouraged to avoid surprising the user. Second, making text smaller because an article appears "too large" has no effect on the upload time, and indeed, extraneous formatting will slow it down slightly. If an article is too large, it may be about time to consider splitting a subsection, or subsections, into a separate article, or fork. Our advice on varying fonts is set out as a usability issue here, and general considerations for partially- and non-sighted users is here. Rodhullandemu 21:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I also object to the changes Corbridge has been making – both the spacing and the font come out much worse than they do with a simple {{reflist|2}} for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Randy Altschuler

Hi, regarding your edits on the Randy Altschuler page, you should adjust the full name on the top of the page. Stylistically, it should be Randolph Brody "Randy" Altschuler (see Bill Clinton and Jeff Sessions for examples.) Thanks! --96.57.62.106 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life activists

I see that you've added the tag "pro-life activist" to several pages. While these folks are all pretty clearly "pro-life," what makes them activists, other than being elected officials who hold that position? Should everyone who campaigned on health care reform be labeled a "health care activist"? Seems problematic to me. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I categorized the individuals based upon their stated beliefs. That is all one can do. As an editor, how do you decide if someone is sufficiently "activist" to be categorized as such. I take individual at their word. As I pointed out to the editor named "Kelly", the newly elected Congresswoman from South Dakota, Kristi Noem has made it very, very clear that she is hardcore "pro-life". I understand your general concern, but you have not pointed out which one of the people I categorized this way as "problematic." I think you need to be more specific. Which one is "problematic"? And why? Let me ask you: What is inherently wrong with calling someone who campaigned for the health care reform a "health care activist"? If that person ran a political campaign looking to change health care laws then they were "active" in their attempt to provide health care. Why doesn't "health care activist" apply? At what point do you find it ok to make that determination? It doesn't matter because there needs to be an objective standard that determines these things. I choose to take people at their word. I have copied my discussion with "Kelly" below. If you are concerned then you need to open a discussion in the most appropriate place which is the talk page of the individual which you believe doesn't deserve the category and you need to explain why. You have stated that there is a "problem" but you have not outlined what the "problem" is, who the "problem" applies to, and why in that particular's person's article it is a "problem". Merely stating that there is a "problem" is not an actionable concern. As I pointed out to Kelly how can one categorize Martin Sheen as a "pro-life activist", but not Noem, especially after what she has stated on the record concerning abortion. It is not enough for you to simply state that my edits are "problematic" you need to state how you would do them differently and why.--Corbridge (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you decide if someone is an "pro-life activist"? I seem to take the words of Kristi Noem for what they are (clearly activist): "I am, and always have been, pro life. From the miracle of conception to a dignified death, life is precious and should be protected. The federal government has no business forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. If elected to Congress, I will maintain a 100% pro-life voting record."--Corbridge (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to open a discussion on Talk:Kristi Noem. This is potentially controversial...trust me. Kelly ^hi! 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I will take your word for it. However, I will point out that Katherine Harris, Nat Hentoff, and Martin Sheen, who are all pro-life, are categorized as "pro-life activists" even though they do not have even a fraction of Noem's commitment to the issue.--Corbridge (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Your wholesale addition of this category without adequate references is causing concern. Your confusion that dedication = activism somehow is also troubling; Noem may be the most dedicated person in the world, and still not be an activist. Are you certain you understand what activism entails? Where is your source that any of these people have been activists, please? "Pro-life" does not mean "Pro-life activist" any more than "breast fed her children" means "Member of La Leche League". Don't fall afoul of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Sarah Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Obamacare"

Hi I just wanted to let you know I changed the wording in the edit to the Dereck Schmidt page. You listed the health care reform bill as “Obamacare” this is not an official term but rather a slang term started by conservatives and can be taken offensively by some. Please refrain from using this terminology in the future, our personal opinions to not belong in wikipedia. Thanks.--Politicsislife (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Scott Walker article - a series of edits which do not improve the article

You have made several, sequential edits to the Scott Walker article that are variously; contrary to sourced material, factually incorrect or ungrammatical, and made without acknowledging discussion already on the talk page. You made these edits with zero edit summaries describing or justifying them.

• 1. You have reverted an edit that was correct and was based on sourced information contained in the article [1]. Though his father was a Baptist minister, he is now a member of a non-denomination evangelical church.

• 2. You incorrectly changed the name of the paper cited in the article, which was clearly the Milwaukee Journal at the time, a simple click on the cite would have shown you were factually incorrect before you made the change. Again, you left no edit summary.

• 3. You revised a quote, so it is not a correct quote anymore. He said is part of the quote. diff

• 4 You omitted the terms "leaving" and earlier, "quitting" resulting in some confusion - he explained his reasons for what? for getting a C average or for not finishing? You have made this unclear. diff Your edit also introduces ambiguity and error about the grade itself, the number of credits remaining which was at least 36 as described in the source.[2]

• 5. You have made the sentence grammatically incorrect as well as unclear, with no expanation.diff. I am beginning to think that you wish to obfuscate or whitewash the simple fact that Gov. Walker quit college, but it is a simple fact, and as I discussed on the talk page, it is better to mention it straight out, using neutral terms such as "leave" and "quit" and to include his explanation than it is to obscure these facts.

Please respond to these points if you wish to continue reverting material or making the article less accurate or unclear. Also please see the discussion already on the talk page regarding the mention of his quitting college. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I responded to this long diatribe in the appropriate place which is here: Governor Scott Walker's article.--Corbridge (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the comments given by the above user, I would also like to raise the point about the paragraph that I had added yesterday to the aforementioned article concerning the prank call made to Governor Walker by Ian Murphy. Although I must agree that it is most probably biased, I argue that it should not be altogether removed, and instead should be replaced by a more neutral paragraph, possibly following the format of the one you had mentioned. Since the event seems to have redefined the situation at least slightly, and since it has been a deciding factor in the opinion polls about the governor, it seems fit that it should be mentioned, even if briefly. Also,I would like to say that certain things in the paragraph that may have seemed offensive, such as the reference to a baseball bat (in this case it was a direct quote) were based in facts and not opinions derived from carefully listening to the entire recording of the conversation available on the site that I referenced the paragraph to. Part of neutrality is presenting all of the facts of an event, however controversial, to the reader, so that they can use it as a credible source of information. I would also appreciate if you might mention exactly what it was you found wrong with the paragraph so that I might be able to improve it. In addition I am slightly concerned with the capability of any person to judge the neutrality of such a paragraph in a time less than ten minutes, as indicated on the editing history of the aforementioned article.--Jln Dlphk (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the paragraph to be more neutral (deleting words such as "trick" and making it clear that Murphy was impersonating Koch, and have also listened to your suggestion that my original source was not credible. I have used a credible source, the Washington Post, and also added references to the The Beast (the original source of the story; Murphy is its editor) and Fox News, which is my attempt to make it more fair to both sides of the debate by giving both of their arguments equal ground. Please, if you have any other problems, discuss them instead of reverting my edits every ten minutes (literally). Also, if you want the paragraph changed, change it yourself (I have no reëdited it several times in accordance with your complaints) or discuss so we can ensure that all factual information is presented, and presented neutrally.--Jln Dlphk (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop commenting on my talk page. You need to go to the Scott Walker talk page and explain yourself there. I will not engage with you here. Your edit was based upon a non-RS, it is full of POV, and it way too long (undue weight). Go edit properly and go to the talk page over there to discuss your edits not here.--Corbridge (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. My response is on the article's talk page.--Jln Dlphk (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)