User talk:Teaparty2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to George Runner. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Master and Commander (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Teaparty2010 OCNative seems to think Wikipedia should be the campaign page for Senator Runner. I have not added any personal opinions. OCNative was the person who added the section on Mrs. Runner. I did conceed the "taxpayer advocate" that he insisted is accurate - although any political could find someone to call them a taxpayer advocate.

If you feel differently, please provide an example of a personal opinion. I'm willing to listen to reason.

Thank you.

Teaparty2010

Calling someone a career politician is personal analysis. Just call him a politician.
Taxpayer advocate is his title on the ballot, according to the California Secretary of State, and the job he holds at Americans for Prosperity, according to their press release.
To keep articles concise, extra information solely about other subjects should be left on their article. The fact that Barbara Alby had only been in office for a few months belongs on her article not his article. The description of Sharon Runner's board appointment belongs on her article not his article. Barbara Alby's job length and Sharon Runner's job have nothing to do with George Runner.
The status of a graduate certificate is not relevant to the article, nor is it relevant that the University discontinued the program. Runner has the graduate certificate. Leave it at that.
I think OCNative may be overstating Runner's role as Desert Christian while you are trying to downplay it. My reading of Desert Christian's web site leads me to believe that Runner was the leader of the group. It is not unreasonable to call him the founder in the introduction (as OCNative wrote) nor is it unreasonable to say a group of leaders including Runner founded the school in the "Private school founding" section (as you wrote).
I don't see why you deleted OCNative's article links to Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County, and Ronald Reagan Day.

Master and Commander (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up response from Teaparty 2010: I believe that all of the information that I added might be of interest to voters. I didn't intentionally delete any links. But sometimes when OCNative deletes my content and I need to re-draft a section, these types of errors can occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaparty2010 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't intentionally delete any links and "these types of errors can occur," then why didn't you restore them when you discovered your mistake?
It doesn't matter if your information is "of interest to voters," as what matters is if your information is encyclopedic. That is how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not the Huffington Post or the Drudge Report.
Furthermore, if the information is "of interest to voters," then the voters can click through to the articles about Barbara Alby, Sharon Runner, etc.
Calling him a career politician violates the neutral point of view required by Wikipedia.

Master and Commander (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Follow-up response from Teaparty 2010:'

I do appreciate you views. But if your read the article before my edits I looks like a campaign website. Encyclopedic information includes both positive and negative information. OCNative apparently doesn't need any assistance in posting postitive information. I apologize but I lack the technical expertise to restore the links. Unlike OCNative I don't have 7,500 posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaparty2010 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that encyclopedic information does include both positive and negative information. However, you have still not addressed any of my points regarding the relevance of the information that I outlined above. Master and Commander (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for disruptive editing and edit warring using socks (Sactruth) on George Runner. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 00:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unblock Comment by Teaparty 2010 on the 24 Hour Ban

Note[edit]

Please read this section of our harassment policy. Do not link a pseudonymous editor with the name of an identifiable person. The edits you made that did this have now been oversighted and are no longer publicly visible. This is considered a very inappropriate action on this project, and now that you have had this rule brought to your attention, you must not repeat this error. Should you do so, you are likely to be permanently removed from the project. Risker (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended[edit]

Please read the following; this account is blocked until such time we receive assurances that you are willing to abide by Wikipedia policies:

You may not, under any circumstances, release the personal information of another editor. This includes attempting to tie an editor using a pseudonym to a real person, workplace or home location. Because you continued to make comments of this nature about User:OCNative after being warned and blocked, the block has been extended (and your access to write on your talk page revoked) until such time as you indicate you are willing to stop. Please read WP:OUTING for the full policy.
Your last message here seemed to indicate that more than one person is using this account. This also violates policy - even if multiple people use a computer, each person must have their own account. See Wikipedia:Username_policy#Sharing_accounts.
If you have concerns over article content, the appropriate way to handle it is to discuss the problem based on Wikipedia policies and engage the community if you can't come to a congenial solution. For example, please see the ideas outlined at WP:Dispute Resolution. It would probably be helpful if you review the policies that govern Wikipedia articles, most importantly WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR.

If you're willing to abide by Wikipedia's site policies, this block can be lifted after the original 24 hours are up. Since you cannot edit your talk page currently (this is a precaution to ensure no further attempts at outing occur) you can email me at shell.kinneygmail.com or the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-llist.wikimedia.org to discuss lifting the block. More information about blocks can be found at Wikipedia:UNBLOCK. Shell ^babelfish 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]