User talk:Arbor8/archive2

Bobby Schilling

My block had nothing to do with abuse of the page. That was a cheap shot. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you edited that particular page with multiple different socks. Am I wrong? Arbor832466 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I edited it with legitimate intentions with one sock. Please know what you're talking about before you make accusations and call my edits into question. I do not appreciate your personal attacks over a content dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

From SteelersFan123

I would like to know what was "not constructive" about writing down Lipinski's recent comments about HR 3. Please explain further. Thank you. (just moving this for formatting purposes Arbor832466 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC))SteelersFan123 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)SteelersFan123

I cited all of my sources and what was written about him was only in regards to his stances on HR 3. I would like a very concise and thorough explanation. Thirteen percent of contributors to Wikipedia are women. I finally write about something that interests me as a woman, and I am immediately deleted. I am done with Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for squelching my voice about issues that matter to me as a woman in America today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelersFan123 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, SteelersFan. Your edits to Dan Lipinski were not constructive because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for everything someone has ever said. For more on contributing to Wikipedia, and how to do so within the style of the project, take a look at What Wikipedia is not and WP:NOTABILITY.

Nobody is squelching your voice, I'm just asking that you follow the same standards and practices as everybody else, including WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV.

I'd also note that I, too, am a female editor, and I'm glad you're here! Arbor832466 (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arbor8. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

From Schandenling

Arbor832466 your tactics are bully some. As a proud, gay abortion doctor, I will advise you to cease this conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schandenling (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking you to follow the same standards and practices as everyone else is not bullying, Schandenling. I would advise you to avoid personal attacks. Is there an edit of mine you disagreed with in particular? Arbor832466 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob Etheridge

Please do not accuse me of posting my own viewpoint in the Bob Etheridge article. The supposed "facts" presented in the article prior to my edit were from an opinion column. My edit clarifies that the "source" did not quote any sources of its own. That is a FACT, not an opinion. It also states that the source did not name the supposed "Republican strategists." That is a FACT, not an opinion. I'm sorry if the narrative conflicts with your political viewpoint but Wikipedia is about FACTS I do believe and those are what I added. Please don't cite me some esoteric opertating guidelines either to tell me I'm wrong, we all know what the defintion of "is" is, and we know what a fact is. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, anon. Feel free to rewrite the section in a way that complies with Wikipedia guidelines, but do not re-insert weasel words like "claims," scare quotes or your own analysis. Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Are you a fluent speaker of the English language? If so, please define "fact": _____________________.

2. The "source" cited in the article did not quote any sources of its own. Is this a fact in your mind, or not? Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no."

3. The "source" cited in the article did not name these supposed "Republican political strategists." Is this a fact in your mind, or not? Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no."

4. If your answer to #3 is anything but an unquivocal "yes," please state the names of thes "Republican political strategists": __________________. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Anon, you are way out of line and about to get yourself blocked by another editor. Tone it down. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me? "Out of line"? I asked you simple questions regarding facts, and what constitute the same. Please don't use that supercilious tone with me. I await your response to these simple questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Corbridge. Some of your recent edits are bordering on incivility. Please try to direct your comments at the content of Wikipedia, not at the character of other editors. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make up facts. You might disagree with things that I said, but you cannot make up facts. I did not make any comments directly at anyone's character. That is just false. Please stop immediately.--Corbridge (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you stand by the appropriateness of the above edits? Or this edit summary for that matter? Arbor8 (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. You stated right above here, "direct your comments at the content of Wikipedia, not at the character of other editors" which states that I have directed comments at the character of other editors and that is false. It is not true. You must stop.--Corbridge (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk pages

Just so you know, any user is allowed to remove almost any message from their talk page (exceptions are for things like declined unblock requests while still blocked, sockpuppet notifications, etc.). So User:RadPadFren is allowed to remove those warnings from his/her page. The removal is considered to be an acknowledgment that the message has been read. See WP:BLANKING for more details. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Okay. S/he hasn't really responded to anyone's concerns, so I was curious. Arbor8 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sean Duffy and wormholes

LOL. Thanks for pointing out my error. ;-) I accidentally placed the wrong url in there. I fixed it. Nightscream (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hurt

What do you mean it was not an easy win? Reliable sources clearly indicate he won with ease.[1][2][3] Truthsort (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Easy" is a subjective term. He won by a large margin -- doesn't necessarily mean it was "easy." Arbor8 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Fincher

Hello. I found this AFD discussion, which you created back last October; unfortunately you forgot to list it on the WP:AFD main page, as you should have done. As a result it was never closed - AFD discussions normally get seven days of discussion, but this one's been open for five months! I've closed it myself, since the only possible result was keep: the subject, Stephen Fincher, has since been elected and become indisputably notable. But just remember to follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO more closely in future. (Step 3 is what you missed here.) Robofish (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility or lack thereof

Dear Arbor: As indicated by the following comments I would ask that you comment in a civil manner. Your comment is inappropriate and wrong. The article about Kristi Noem is a fair article. It is not "pro-Noem propaganda" as you state. I have not stated that only "pro-Noem propaganda" is the only information that should go in the article. Also, I have not been "pushing" an agenda. Please refrain from making such personal attacks. Please stop. You can review your personal attacks here: personal attack one and here: personal attack two--Corbridge (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those examples constitutes a personal attack, Corbridge. C'mon. Arbor8 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please no canvassing

Please do not engage in WP:CANVAS as you have done here: Canvas 1 and here: Canvas 2 and here: Canvas 3 and here: Canvas 4 and here: Canvas 5 and here: Canvas 6 and here: Canvas 7--Corbridge (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey - Notifying editors that they've been mentioned in a dispute isn't canvassing. That concern is addressed here. Arbor8 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Asking someone to certify your complaint is clearly canvassing, as you did with Frank here: Example of Arbor8 canvassing to get someone to certify her complaint.--Corbridge (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. He offered his help, and I took him up on it. Not every communication between editors on Wikipedia is canvassing. Please review WP:CANVASS. Arbor8 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Corbridge RfC

Hello, Arbor8. You have new messages at [[User talk:KeptSouth (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)|User talk:KeptSouth (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just to let you know... I have asked to have the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Corbridge, deleted as it no longer has 2 users certifying/supporting it. --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up. As I said, I'm not inclined to pursue the RfC/U further because I think a sockpuppet investigation is more appropriate. I am curious, though, why you would rather delete the RfC rather than improve it, since you agree (I think) that Corbridge is a very problematic editor? Arbor8 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I explained yesterday over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Corbridge. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410

Hi. You may wish to add to your report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410 the IPs I mention there. I would, but am not sure of protocol, given that it is your report. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I will check em out, thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill Flores

Bill Flores continues to be blanked. Please help in monitoring for changes if you can. Thanks SimonBolivar20112 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was blanked again by a user that you gave final warning to. I will request page protection SimonBolivar20112 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Emails

I believe there is consensus, even though you are the one person who does not feel it should be deleted.

• I believe it should.
• Lionel believes it should be deleted
• 108.74.28.81 believes it should be deleted
• Wikipelli believes it should be deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamaliel#Emails_to_Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz)

This seems like a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS because a minor spat between two minor congressmen is certainly not encyclopedic content. If you disagree, I'm willing to hear you out, but I'm considering asking for an admin to resolve the issue.

DaffyBridge (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 108.74.28.81 said s/he believes it should be included, as does ItsZippy and Gamaliel. By all means, though, feel free to loop in an admin. Please do be mindful of WP:CANVASS though. Arbor8 (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what Canvassing is. I read the page but I still don't understand it. Can you please explain? DaffyBridge (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Heath Shuler

I think you need to take another look at your revert here [4]. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Every member of congress "has voted numerous times to increase government spending" (that's how annual budgets get passed, after all), but here it is cherry-picked to cast Shuler in a negative light. The section could certainly stand to be re-written, but i stand by the revert. Arbor8 (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary says "Remove editorializing" , but you're restoring this content?

Shuler is a somewhat conservative Democrat. He opposes abortion and gun control, and also takes a hard line on illegal immigration. These stances are not surprising given the nature of his district. Although this area is historically Democratic, it has a strong tinge of social conservatism. However, on economic and environmental matters, Shuler tends to vote more with his party.

I'm not saying that content is completely off but that strikes me as weird content to restore considering the wp:OR, and your edit summary. I do agree with removing the cherry picking paragraph --CutOffTies (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. That is problematic. But the other stuff was problematic too. Will take a closer look, thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My editing

What part am I exactly violating? All the info I gave is true, and verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.2.83 (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matt Stoller

I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Matt Stoller, as it was previously discussed at VfD (the predecessor to the present-day AfD) and therefore cannot be deleted under the proposed deletion process. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; it is not an endorsement for keeping the article. If you wish to pursue deletion, please feel free to open another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Is there a different tag I should use on the article itself? Arbor8 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you used Twinkle to add the prod tag; simply use the "XFD" option on the Twinkle menu and type your AfD rationale there. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Arbor8!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Gobsmacked by your reply

You can read my reply here. I can't believe you have so little respect for other Wikipedia editors, but I suppose I should be thankful you at least admit it upfront. 99.50.190.206 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job on reverting vandalism to Pat Tiberi article

Specifically, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Tiberi&action=historysubmit&diff=459815617&oldid=459766070

I've tagged the IP user talk page as preamble to blocking the account. Based on your other edits, I suspect I'm to the left of you, politically, but when it comes to vandals of any persuasion, I can assure you that I am all fire & brimstone. Please let me know if you need any help combating them. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help, and thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Left message over on your SPI

Thanks, in advance for responding.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Left another msg or 2 related to your SPI. Happy holiday, RegardsKeptSouth (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded over there. Arbor8 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:75.133.172.99

I have just reverted User:75.133.172.99's re-addition of unsourced information to the Claire McCaskill regarding her alleged role in the shut down of the Kansas City International Raceway, and I noticed in the article's edit history that you reverted the same addition of that information by this user last month. Any thoughts on how to deal with this issue beyond reverting the information in question would be appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a level 1 warning on the IP's talk page and will continue to keep an eye on the McCaskill article. If this becomes a real problem we can request that the page be semiprotected, but I don't think we're there yet. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Arbor8 (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, as a frequent contributor to that article, I already have it on my Watchlist, and any assistance from my fellow Wikipedians in watching out for incidents such as this one are greatly appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)