User talk:Arbor8/archive3

Thanks!

Thanks for helping revert nonconstructive edits on the Jared Polis page :) Safehaven86 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping clean up the editorializing done on Senator Steven Horsford's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryjane590 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Menendez

Hello Arbor8, on what grounds do you claim that my edits were POV based? My contributions were supported by neutral sources. Removing an entire section without a clear argument is against Wikipedia regulations. So please explain your actions. Mursel (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found Arbor8's reasoning ("remove editorializing") clear and correct. I think that the article could use more on the Armenian-related aspects of Menendez's tenure, but such content should include all points of view and carefully avoid presenting opinions as facts. I would recommend taking further discussion of this topic to the article's talk page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McCaskill assets

On the Claire McCaskill page, I would change the Assets paragraph to:

Her 2010 Senate financial disclosure report listed, among other assets, six whose combined value was between $2,000 and $34,000, but which earned between $77,500 and $180,000. The assets were Bank of America, Brookcrossing Apartments, Carthage Associates, Cherry Tree Apartments, First Rural Housing, and JSKV Corporation.

It's tighter. Tagus 17:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the Edit on Jon Bruning

You need to stop the edits that I have made on Bruning Website. I have looked at your past edits and you like to bully people and threaten to get them banned from wikipedia. The edits I have made are because are democrat POV. Just because it has been cited doesn't make it correct. The quotes that were used in the politico article were from edited video on a libel website who sent a tracker to record a speech by Jon. The group only released footage that they believed would show Jon in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskerfan1980 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you simply can't remove cited, relevant information from Wikipedia just because you don't like it. As for the "threats" you refer to, a checkuser confirmed that you have been socking under at least three accounts, and I'm confident that all will be blocked shortly. Arbor8 (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor8 indeed has a history of bullying people on Wikipedia - she finds biased information she calls "relevant information" and bullies her blatantly biased “facts” onto politicians wikis from around the country. Movingfoward (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing of a sockpuppet

You need to stop accusing me of being a sockpuppet. I signed in and wrote the reason why that section needed to be removed. You need to stop bullying people who disagree with you. You need to prove why that section does not need to be removed. All you have is accused me of being something that I am not. It is beginning to look pretty petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by West1806 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You socked previously under at least three different accounts, so I don't feel like I'm out of line here. Also, my intent is not to bully you; just to ask that you play by the same rules as everyone else. Arbor8 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are way out of line. I am not George00305. It is funny that every time someone disagrees with you attack and bully people. You are a bully and your past history says so. So stop it.

POV conflict

Hello Arbor8, I started a talk page debate on Martin Heinrichs page, I think we can find a workable solution that provides all the necessary info in an encyclopedic tone. Thanks!YourACoughDrop (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look!Arbor8 (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message

Looks like your edits & feedback have generated quite a stir on Wikipedia! That said, I have faith that you are making the edits in good faith and with good intentions, and I appreciate that you are taking the time do so. I am new here, so it is great to learn the best practices of contributing to Wikipedia. I'd like to discuss your feedback and work with you to get additional information posted in a way that meets your views on neutrality. I don't see a way to contact you directly, in a one-on-one fashion. Can you include your email address in the message you send me?

P.S. Out of curiosity, can you tell me what your official role as editor of Wikipedia is? [[User talk:suzannepak|talk]

I don't have an official role -- the beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone who wants to can be an editor. All you have to do is start editing! I've been at it since some time in 2009 I think. One of the tenets of Wikipedia is to engage as a community rather than through private messages whenever possible so rather than corresponding via email, you should feel free to ask questions on my talk page or on the talk page of any articles you're interested in editing.

I also want to clarify that my views on neutrality are irrelevant -- but Wikipedia does have guidelines about promotion, neutrality and conflicts of interest that I think might be relevant here. I strongly encourage you to visit the WP:HELPDESK, WP:Teahouse (a gathering place for new users) or New contributors help page to get in touch with more experienced editors and Administrators who can answer all of your questions. Thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kissell

Hello Arbor8! I saw you removed some info I put up on Kissell's 2010 Election campaign, I started a discussion on his talk page, I used a new reference, and changed the way the info is presented to make it more encyclopedic. I think some of the issues that influenced the election are notable and should be included. Can you let me know what you think?? And please propose any changes to improve the tone. By looking through your edits I see your main concern is the neutrality of the info being placed on pages, I am still pretty new at this and would like your input.

Thanks,DerickDiamond (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the picture on your talk page is hilarious

Ok check it out, I removed the unreliable sources and replaced them. You should read this Article from the New Yorker, it uses statistical metrics to examine the effect of voting for Obama's policies in swing districts. I thought it was interesting, and much more reliable then the national review or American spectator lol.

Thanks,DerickDiamond (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

careful...

"if her record as a recipe plagiarizer ends up having an impact on the campaign, I'll eat my hat" — given the idiotic circumstances of current American politics, you might already wanna decide on white toast or wheat with that ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I almost made a joke about her being a "cereal plagiarizer." Oh and did I fail to mention that my hat is made of delicious gouda cheese? :) Arbor8 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That means you'll end up in Dutch. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Arbor8. You have new messages at Chip123456's talk page.
Message added 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thank you. Chip123456 (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes

I'd like your opinion on something, as I haven't the background.

Keen eye you have there. This has been on my back burner for a while. I'll make the report today. Arbor8 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Elections

I disagree with your editing of politician's pages during election season. Unfortunately, many people get their sole source of information from Wikipedia and it is important to have legislation information available for readers to see what each politician/campaign stands for. Not every piece of legislation needs to be documented, but it is valuable to have key pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisonewins (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of votes. Please see WP:NOTE for info on notability criteria, as well as WP:BRD for an outline of Wiki procedure "Be bold, revert, discuss." Please open a conversation on the talk page before reverting again. Arbor8 (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanan edits

Hi -

Thanks for your note re: my edits to Vern Buchanan's page. Please review my edits for neutral POV, and if I come off as biased, please let me know and edit/delete as you see fit. I was just trying to update for the new Congress with some properly-cited legislative issues (and the 'alleged' thing just caught my eye, as he hadn't been found guilty of anything yet, and I watch a lot of Law & Order :-).

Best.

Jmaiella — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmaiella (talk • contribs) 20:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cotton Rogers

I briefly edited under my IP address 74.79.39.105 before deciding to make my self avail to the benefits of an account (I'm not sure what your getting at) since i enjoyed editing so much. also I was not editing against consensus just against your opinions (and maybe one other person) also you grossly oversimplified my argument it was a lot more than "I liked the other way better" to be honest I thought you were editing against consensus I will keep on editing Kirsten Gillibrand you arguments are species at best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotton Rogers (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have changed wording and added both sides of the argument in attempt to satisfy both our concerns since your previous edit I believe was unneutral while my changes are neutral and give balance to both sides not one over the other any way let me know your opinion on the recent changes and additions as I find them fair and admit maybe my prevoius wording was a little hastyCotton Rogers (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dean Dozen

I think you definitely have a point with questioning the notable nature of my edits. I am making the changes for the sake of uniformity and updating outdated pages. A lot of these candidates don't even have mention of running an election in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesco77 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Robert Dold

Hi Arbor8. Congressional Dold does not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. I have checked with his office. This article you linked is mistaken. That's why, unless you have a quote of video footage of him saying as much, it should be removed. He is not in favor of gay marriage, but doesn't support a constitutional ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIBSTRBS (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original research. If you can find a reliable secondary source, then by all means make the edit. Please see WP:OR for more on the topic. Arbor8 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arbor. I understand, but as you can see on his website (http://www.doldforcongress.com/pages/social_issues/295.php), he never mentions supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It is disingenuous to say otherwise. You are intentionally misrepresenting his position, and clearly your view is far from neutral. Don't you think if he supported something as drastic as a constitutional ban on an issue he would note it on his website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIBSTRBS (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he doesn't mention it on his website doesn't indicate anything other than that he doesn't mention it on his website. Any other extrapolation is your interpretation, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Arbor8 (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WIBSTRBS, do you have any affiliation with the Dold campaign? Arbor8 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I think claim is extremely biased and unfounded. Encyclopedias don't just cite things as fact based on a single news source, especially if it's not based off a quote, photo, video, etc. I felt the claim that Robert Dold supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage sounded false, so I did my homework and even spoke to his office to confirm it's not true. It seems you have your own reasons to keep something you know to be untrue on Wikipedia, and so I'll take it up with the Wiki staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIBSTRBS (talk • contribs) 02:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Arbor8 is right on this. If the text accurately reflects what is in the source then that is the "truth" for Wikipedia. If you want to make the case for changing this you need to find another reliable secondary source (More than one is better) that reflects what you want to add.Lesbianadvocate (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Heitkamp

Hi! Would you mind posting on the talk page at Heidi Heitkamp to explain why you think the part about "pay-to-play" is not notable? You have deleted this material two times without posting anything on the talk page. I don't think that is very constructive. In any event, your input would be appreciated. Lesbianadvocate (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Arbor8 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.34.254.59

Hi Arbor8,

Another admin declined your report at WP:AIV, and I've removed it. The other admin mentioned it being a stale report (more than 2 days after last edits); that's not really a problem to me, since the same person has obviously been making these edits for a month. If it was simple vandalism, I'd have blocked for it. The problem is it isn't clearly vandalism; it appears to be more an issue of POV editing, or trying to achieve better NPOV in a bad way, or a content dispute, or BLP issues, or something. A little too complicated for AIV, where we generally handle obvious vandalism rapidly, rather than less obvious POV issues that require investigation or discussion.

It appears they've commented on the article talk page; please engage with them there. If there are POV-pushing issues that aren't resolved by discussion, then please consider WP:ANI instead of WP:AIV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this a little more, have left a message on the IP's talk page, agree with your removal of their material, and have removed some more material myself. Let me know if they re-add the material without consensus, and I'll block the IP for a slow burning edit war. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Arbor8! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Cravaack

Re: Chip Cravaack page. My contribution wasn't constrctive? It says he lives in New Hampshire, which is a false. That's why it was changed to Minnesota. The guy lives 3 blocks down the street from my parents. (Superguy6576 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Superguy6576Superguy6576 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

According to the citation in the article, he and his family live in New Hampshire. Regarding the rest of your comment, I'll just point you to Wikipedia's policy on original research Arbor8 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Arbor8! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!

Get involved by:

Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
Participate at and "like" our Facebook group
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel
Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering
Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience!

Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]