User talk:Goodrepublican

Welcome!

Hello, Goodrepublican, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page E. J. Pipkin have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me my talk page. Again, welcome! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing POV edits

Please do not major edits such as these to an article without discussing it on the article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Here's the problem-- this guy is being maligned and I am trying to update his information from his website and using the Maryland Legislature as sources.

If the man himself says these items are true and they can be backed up by a primary source, I would have bet that was okay to use. Please expound.Goodrepublican (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself agree that some of the prior edits were clearly by a conservative opponent of Pitkin. That does not give you an excuse to use biased sources, especially the candidate's own website, and biased language. Your edits have gone much too far the other way in substituting selective, but sourced, information, with vague praise and peacockery. You must observe a neutral point of view; and you must use verifiable, reliable sources for all edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if I were to simply list the bills (and a link to the actual bills) instead you would be okay with that?Goodrepublican (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any legislator can introduce a bill; but sometimes it's just a joke (back in the 1970s, three congressmen introduced a bill to make "Born to Run" the national anthem; so what?), or mere political grandstanding. What is needed is an impartial analysis (from a reputable source, such as local papers like the Washington Post) of his record and standing. What has Pipkin actually accomplished? What are his factional affiliations within the state legislature and his political party? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]