User talk:Anappealtoheaven

Welcome...

Hello, Anappealtoheaven, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Eseymour 21:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Thompson

Please don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox. -- Y not? 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's too long - it's that you're using the site to promote some groups' political agendas. I asked another editor to review. -- Y not? 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson links

Hi Anappealtoheaven. I noticed your recent edits to the Fred Thompson article. Two of the websites you linked, the Christian Worldview site and the Gun Owners of America site, do not appear to adhere to Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. Additionally, I have serious doubts that the information found on those websites is encyclopedic. I agree with Y's statement above, as well, in regard to your citation of those sources in the Thompson article as being a bit soapboxy, especially given the obscurity of those sources. Including information from those obscure sources likely also violates Wikipedia's policy on undue weight. I moved the Washington Monthly article you added to the external links section of the Thompson article, as it is the only one of the three that meets the external links guideline. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC debate edits

Look - you can't imply that the online vote after the MSNBC debate was in any way a valid survey or poll - as you well must know, it is not any such thing. I think it's cool that ROn Paul supporters came out to give him a boost, and I understand why you want some indication of that in the articles, but it is grossly misleading to refer to him as a front runner in any way or to imply that this was a valid indication of his support among the population or among Republicans. And putting that in other candidates' articles the way you did is never going to stand. I tried re-wording it in a more neutral way, but I doubt the editors of those pages are going to buy it - they certainly are not if it sounds like a commercial for Paul. Just some advice - I did the same thing on all of the pages that I found it on, and am not favoring one over another. Your edits, however, suggest that you are, so you should be more careful. Tvoz |talk 16:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please. As if everybody on Wikipedia doesn't have a bias of some sort or another. Well, except for maybe bots. The fact is that NPOV is a result of two groups of people with opposing POVs fighting over an article and eventually reaching a compromise. Don't pretend that you are some dispassionate, objective observer with absolutely no opinions of your own or bias of any kind. --BlarghHgralb 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I don't have opinions - I said that Appeal's edits that I was discussing were intensely biased and grossly misleading and that they were not going to stand. I was giving him or her some advice about proceding - it isn't supposed to be that the one with the biggest mouth gets to decide what's in an article, and inserting deceptive statements is not going to work. One other thing - in fact, sometimes people do edit articles because they are interested in the subject, not because they are biased for or against. Try it some time. Tvoz |talk 17:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally people have an opinion when it comes to political issues, and I find it hard to believe that anyone exists who doesn't have a political bias of some kind. And regarding my comment about NPOV, I stand by it. Obviously, a subject about, say, trees is not going to be in danger of violating NPOV as much as sensitive topics such as politics and religion. This being said, people still do have opinions on pretty much every subject, even if they are unconcious. From your edits I assume that you are a New Yorker, and (I presume) a liberal one. Your edits to the article in mention, therefore, are probably going to reflect a liberal New Yorker bias. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, as having an opinion is part of being a human being. Just don't pretend that you are simply correcting edits that you see as as violating NPOV out of simple concern for objectivity. Odds are that if you were a Ron Paul supporter, you would probably let the problem go and let someone else deal with it; the inverse is also true. --BlarghHgralb 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - I said in my original comment that I was "not favoring one over another" - that was a reference to the other debate participants on whose articles Appeal put what I believe are dishonest comments about Paul's so-called polling success. In other words, I'm not a McCain supporter trying to stop Paul supporters from saying he's a frontrunner. I'm a person who can read trying to stop Paul supporters from saying he was a frontrunner on May 8. My political leanings have nothing to do with it. As for your last point, I am human so you could be right about that - I'm not a wikipedia crusader for truth, justice and the American way. So yeah, I'm sure I've backed off of disagreements and let someone else do the edit, but that's the way it is supposed to be done here. I can't recall being correctly reversed for being POV, but I'm sure it's happened. I've never been correctly cited for 3RR because I try to work with other editors. Which, if you go back to look, is what I was doing with Appeal's edits - I didn't remove them, I tried to make them more neutral and more truthful. Tvoz |talk 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your posts

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --T_{Talk to me} 01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edits

OK - just trying to keep the article neutral and notable. Tvoz |talk 06:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLease re-think your addition of the JOhn Birch Society as a source - especially a source complaining that news outlets have an agenda. Their agenda is as long as your arm. Tvoz |talk 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. nor is it a place to manipulate politics. Your agenda with the Ron Paul Article is obvious. I truley did come here to read up on Ron Paul, and I am undecided. In my opinion its bad to do this as a supporter of Ron Paul. This site is a non profit orginization. I expect to see facts and relevant accomplishments not a bunch of nonsense —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.82.241.63 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi--I took out the Sean Hannity paragraph because there is already enough detail in the article, it used pretty biased language, and if anything it should have been (with a more neutral point of view) in the presidential campaign article. The incident can certainly be incorporated in the presidential campaign article, but with much more NPOV. --Gloriamarie 01:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to read and understand Wikipedia's Wikipedia:External links page. I hope this will give you a better view of what is and isn't an appropriate external link. Using Wikipedia in order to solicit votes for online petitions and web polls is highly inappropriate. That Ron Paul wiki serves no purpose except to request that Internet users stuff virtual ballot boxes. Rhobite 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal, did you somehow not know that the "allegations of racism" section is being discussed on Talk? Please stop reverting and discuss - Interpaul already got blocked for repeated reversions - there's no need for that to happen. As for these comments being written by a ghostwriter - get a real citation on that. Your saying in edit summary "You are attributing comments to him that are not his own" is simply not enough. Tvoz |talk 14:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul America: Freedom to Fascism

I think the video is good and important, but it's not specifically about Ron Paul and therefore I think it might possibly belong on the Political positions of Ron Paul page, but not on his main page.--Daveswagon 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul official sites

I've responded to your post on the Ron Paul talk page here: Talk:Ron Paul#Official External links deleted/put back.--Daveswagon 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Thompson

I reverted you. One, it is not a note on his actual voting record, it is GOA's characterization, which counts a vote for McCain/Feingold as "anti-gun". I can cite the NRA calling him "a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment". Two, this is not appropriate in the bio anyway. Political positions of Fred Thompson would be where you want to put this in, but I will oppose you characterizing it the same way there as well. - Crockspot 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your edit history, I see that you are a Ron Paul supporter. I would recommend that you not insert POV into opposing candidate's articles again. You appear to have been made aware of this problem of yours several times already, so don't expect me to treat you any differently than I would a DU troll. Please review WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP before editing further. - Crockspot 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy in leads

I note your summary of this edit, "Reverted vandalism which seeks to move controversial political position info into top of article," shows a misunderstanding of WP:LEAD which prescribes that the intro should "briefly [describe] notable controversies." I believe that Paul's positions are so far removed from the mainstream that a summary of is positions must be included in the intro, and I will insist on a dispute tag is it is removed. BenB4 03:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BenB4, There is already plenty of lead in material on Ron Paul's main page. This is consistent with the pages of other candidates. Further, the issues which are being moved up are clearly being taken out of context with a focus on issues in an incomplete manner which seeks to spin and prejudice the reader by clearly misrepresenting "out of context" the candidate's true positions. For this reason it is not appropriate and must be maintained within the POLITICAL POSITIONS section and/or POLITICAL POSITIONS page. Anappealtoheaven 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:LEAD. The only other candidate's page that I've looked at is Obama's, and only because he was mentioned on Paul's talk page. For an article of Paul's size, WP:LEAD prescribes at least three paragraphs to begin with. If political positions are important enough to have their own article (and indeed there are no other sub-articles) then they are certainly important enough to be summarized. I would like you to please also review WP:COI, which states, "Avoid making controversial edits to articles where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia." BenB4 04:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, words such as "staunch defender" are considered WP:PEACOCK terms unless you have a source which uses them. I think "the right to self-defense" is understood when referring to support of handgun ownership, and it is certainly over-general. And he certainly recognizes limits. When Paul was asked about his stance at Google, he said that he did recognize limits on weapon ownership. BenB4 04:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Ron Paul

Your edits to Ron Paul have not been "compromises", they have contained weasel words. As I've told you repeatedly before, Wikipedia has rules. They need to be followed.--Daveswagon 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three revert rule

I understand that you feel strongly about the Ron Paul article, as do I. I am planning, as I described above, to re-insert the summary of his positions. I want to warn you about the three revert rule, which you should please read at WP:3RR. The rule requires that editors must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A "revert" means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing. Please note that you have already made at least three reverts to the Paul article in the past few hours.[1][2][3] If you have made more than three reverts to that page in the past 24 hours, they will not count against you because you have not been warned about the 3RR rule before. (And, note that reverts made in edits made one after the other without intervening edits are counted as one.) Now that you have been warned about the 3RR rule, you must abide by it or you may be blocked, and the log of your block will persist and might disadvantage you if you ever are nominated to be an administrator, or are involved in dispute resolution, etc. BenB4 04:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thanks.

Question:

If you're such a RP fan, what's with all the Huckabee edits? Wikilost (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are POV edits slanted against Huckabee. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Huckabee

I would appreciate it if you would discuss the material at Talk:Mike Huckabee rather than just simply continuing to edit war. By the way, this is your fourth revert. I assume you are familiar with the three revert rule since you've been warned before.--Rise Above The Vile 20:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV editing style

After a review of your recent edits, I can't help but notice that your Pro-Paul, anti-anyone else POV, which you proclaim loudly on your user page, matches quite well to a long contribution history full of excessively POV edits. You deliberately write in a style to disparage other candidates, associating them with 'known liberal' senators and such. This is ridiculously POV editing. WIkipedia articles are not the place to smear other candidates, and if you can't edit the articles here without doing that, then please move on. In the future, remember to keep your edits neutral in tone and fact-focused. And by fact, I mean things you can actually support with citation, not with 'reading between the lines' and innuendos. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stop by and say I agree with ThuranX. You really need to stop the POV on the Huckabee article. I you add "a mixed record immigration" again, I am going to have to report you. Please remember the Three Revert Rule. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To inform you, I have filed an AN/I report against you Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_POV_pushing_onNUmerous_U.S._Political_figures_articles. here. ThuranX (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for repeated POV pushing and your recent uncalled for attacks on Thuranx. During your break from Wikipedia I recommend you read our neutral point of view policy, [WP:NPA|our policy against personal attacks]], and our try in the future to assume good faith. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, man. Don't worry about it. Wait until the block expires, and then just make sure you remain calm. Asta Lavista, Baby! 03:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]