User talk:Brian LaBelle

Your additions to Ed Stelmach

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've removed your additions to Ed Stelmach, because the only source provided about the incident was a Paula Simons article that said nothing about any "death threat", nothing about criticism of Tom Olson, or nothing about an attempt to curry sympathy with newcomers to Alberta. I wouldn't object to including some mention of the threat against him, but it needs to be properly sourced, and shouldn't be framed as a controversy about the Premier unless you can provide evidence of such a controversy from reliable sources. I've started a discussion on this subject at Talk:Ed Stelmach#"Death" threat. Please join in if you disagree with me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brian (if I may so-call you). I've looked over some of your further additions to the Stelmach article, and I'm somewhat concerned that they don't adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. They seem to be overwhelmingly negative - in the information they include (it seems to consist almost entirely of criticism of Stelmach), the slant placed on that information (for example, it emphasizes the criticism of Stelmach's $5,000 per plate dinners and refusals to disclose the names of his donors without placing these in the context that almost all leadership candidates do similar things), Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, just Ed Stelmach, Lyle Olberg, Mark Norris & Dave Hancock. They formed a "fundraising group" called True Blue to organize, cove it and make the donation to their funds. It's in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian LaBelle (talk • contribs)

and the language used ("firestorm of criticism", "after promising a more "open and transparent" government...", etc.). I'm going to look them over more carefully and come up with my own proposed wording because I think there's definitely stuff in there that can be used, but your motivation comes across as being to make Stelmach look bad, and that's a motivation that frankly isn't compatible with editing his article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the wording in the article, hence the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian LaBelle (talk • contribs)

Anyway, I just wanted to raise this concern and hear your response (respond here or on my talk page, whichever you'd prefer) at the outset, since it looks like we're the two editors most interested in the Stelmach article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope the criticism is properly addressed. If something is deemed a controversy, that's because it is. I'm not setting out to make Premier Stelmach look bad but that facts are what they are. If that makes him look bad, that is unfortunate but that doesn't mean public figures should not be held accountable. In the information age, the internet is probably the main source of information consumption, I think I have a responsibility to comment on the good and the bad. You can source Ron labelle made that criticism in his statement to the media which, just coincidentally, wasn't run by the media for obvious reasons. Ronald Labelle released his statement on the internet so it could be sourced and should be in regards to presenting both sides of the story in a way an encyclopedia like wikipedia can. I look forward to reading your re-wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian LaBelle (talk • contribs)

I don't doubt that there are plenty of facts available that look Ed Stelmach look bad, and neither do I doubt that your edits are almost entirely factual. It's not with the facts that I take issue. My problems are as follows:

The facts that you choose to include seem to be entirely those abut controversies involving Ed Stelmach. But the article is not called "Controversies involving Ed Stelmach", it is called "Ed Stelmach". By slanting the article so heavily towards the controversy side - even if all of the controversy you include is factual and well-referenced - you're violating Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view and its policy on biographies of living persons, which states that criticism in articles about living people must be "written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article".
The spin you put on the facts that you include seems to be heavily biased against Stelmach. For example, your original text prefaced the bit about his partial disclosure of campaign donors with "Out of sync with his promise of a more “open and transparent” government...", which is a clear spin. You could just as well have prefaced it with "In contrast to his closest rivals, Jim Dinning and Ted Morton, Stelmach disclosed the donors of that vast majority of his leadership donations". That would be inappropriate because, like your version, it's spun in a way to cast Stelmach in a certain light.

I'd strongly encourage you to reword many of your contributions, and, if your major interest in editing Wikipedia is indeed to expand the Ed Stelmach article, to make some contributions to it that do not involve criticism and controversy. That would go along way towards convincing me that you're here to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia, and not to conduct a hatchet job on Ed Stelmach. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip!

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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! --SineBot (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip! - Brian

Indenting on talk pages

Hi Brian - just so you know, when you indent your comments to respond to people on talk pages, the correct way to do so is by placing a colon, rather than a space, in front of your comments, like so:
:Sarcasticidealist, you haven't made a single coherent point this entire conversation, and have instead spent this entire conversation rattling off lyrics from Neil Young's "Like a Hurricane".
If you put a space in front, it for some reason shows up like this (I'm sure the Wiki markup types could explain what that reason is, but I can't):

Sarcasticidealist, you haven't made a single coherent point this entire conversation, and have instead spent this entire conversation rattling off lyrics from Neil Young's "Like a Hurricane".

Anyway, just thought I'd let you know. I've read your most recent comment on Talk:Ed Stelmach, and will hopefully get around to responding sometime tonight. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well, it would be much appreciated if you could try to make sure you're logged in whenever you edit, and also sign your posts with four tildes as Sinebot advised you to do above. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]