User talk:Organthief1949

August 2012

Hello, I'm Arbor8. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Martin Heinrich seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Your additions are clear violations of several wikipedia policies, including RS, NPOV and notability. Arbor8 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information on major campaign issues in a US Senate campaign are entirely notable. Everything that I added was factual and accurately reflected the sources. I note that your reversion of my edits removed numerous fixes to the article designed to make it more closely conform to the style guide. Organthief1949 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the that your additions are factual and sourced. But that's not enough to warrant inclusion in a BLP. Truth is not an absolute defense. Your additions are sourced, but the sources are not reliable. They are true, but not notable. They are topical but do not adhere to a neutral point of view. Arbor8 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how major newspapers in New Mexico and ABC News are not reliable. I also do not follow how a major scandal that has received significant news coverage for four years is not notable. How could it not be notable? Also, how is accurately portraying the controversy, as it is reflected in the sources, POV? I feel you should reflect on this a bit more. Organthief1949 (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Martin Heinrich, you may be blocked from editing. I don't want to edit war, so I'm asking you to self-revert your problematic edits. Arbor8 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I am not adding any commentary. Everything that I have added accurately reflects the sources. If you would wait briefly, you would also see that I am in the middle of adding Heinrich's responses. Ojito Wilderness is a big deal. It has been covered extensively by the media and meets the requirements for notability. Reporting the facts of what happened and the positions of both sides is entirely reasonable and not POV. I also note that you have been involved in a very large number of conflicts and seem to be POV pushing. This kind of behavior does not seem very constructive.Organthief1949 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press statements from Heinrich's people don't belong here either; Wikipedia is a an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. As far as my "large number of conflicts" are concerned, could you please tell me what you're referring to? Arbor8 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statements to the press can be notable in the context of a political campaign. I have been over your edit history and your talk page. You seem to have an appetite for conflict. Organthief1949 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organthief1949, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Organthief1949! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message automatically delivered by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrod Brown

You removed quite a bit of uncontroversial content from Sherrod Brown (alma mater, committee assignments, prior campaigns, etc) citing the fact that it was unsourced, when a simple search would have turned up sources easily. In the future, please either add a citation needed tag or at least try to find the cite yourself before engaging in mass deletions. Thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel this way. I don't think that removing unsourced material, especially from a BLP article, is in any way inappropriate. In case you are wondering, I am researching Brown and will be adding similar material and other stuff fairly quickly. I see from your take page and edit history, that you are constantly improperly reverting edits, proposing articles for deletion, POV pushing, assuming bad faith, and giving people orders. Take a chill pill. Honey works better than vinegar. Organthief1949 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Sherrod Brown, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Arbor8 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are being uncivil and a little bit out of control. If you keep this up, I will report you to the admins and we will go from there. Organthief1949 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if we got off to a bad start. I am simply asking you to abide by the same policies as everyone else here. Do you mind if I ask, have you ever edited under a different name than the one you are using now? Arbor8 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I am abiding by the rules. If and when I find out I am mistaken I will correct myself. I edited under another account previously. The username was my real name. I decided to give it up for more anonymity. Organthief1949 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are wrong. What you did is called WP:edit warring. Given that you edited under another account, you should have known that already. Anyway, when three different editors are reverting you, you should stop and think that you may just be wrong. In any event, once you were reverted, the right thing to do was to go to the talk page and start a discussion explaining why your changes were right. Two other notes: Try reading a source (or even using your browser's search function) before declaring that the source doesn't support a claim. Also, when a source clearly supports part a claim (e.g., that Brown voted against something), but you don't think it supports another part (e.g., that DOMA was highly popular), you delete the unsupported part, not the whole thing. Finally, you need to develop some judgment on BLPs. While technically, claims in BLPs need to be supported and can be deleted if there is no source, when something is pretty obviously true or is a matter of public record (like who Brown defeated in his elections for Secretary of State), it is usually okay to leave it and perhaps mark it with a {{fact}} tag. It is also a good idea to do a quick search to see if sources exist and perhaps even add them yourself. Deleting easily supported information that happens not to be supported at the moment is not really in the best interests of the project. -Rrius (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not mentioning subject of article

Hello! I'd like to start by thanking you for your contributions to Wikipedia. BLPs can be hard to stay on top of when it comes to people adding contentious and uncensored information.

I'm a little concerned that you've now removed content twice citing that the references don't even mention Brown. Fortunately, browsers allow us to verify that claim almost instantly. Both times Brown in fact was mentioned in the articles. I assume you missed those mentions so I thought I'd let you know about the search function in browsers that can be used by press Ctrl+f. Typing in "Sherrod" or "Brown" will quickly let you jump through the reference to see where his name is used.

I don't mean to belittle or sound condescending if you were already aware of this function but I don't know how else to justify your actions other than you simply made a mistake.

On a side note, do you have any sort of connection to Sherrod Brown, Josh Mandel, or Connie Schultz? OlYeller21^Talktome 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not connected with them. Thank you for the advice on that search function. I will go back and take a look again at those articles. Thanks. Organthief1949 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Also, I've started a discussion here so that we can address the issues you're pointing out. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an idiot. I see it right here now. Sorry.Organthief1949 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting at Sherrod Brown

You've been involved in enough warring at Sherrod Brown that it would make sense for you propose changes on the talk page *first* and then wait for responses. In the August dispute that led to full protection, you seemed to be making uninformed changes that ignored the plain language of the reference that was provided establishing Sherrod Brown's role in the CAFTA debate. It is easy to forgive one mistake, but not so easy when you continue reverting thereafter. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged that my edit with respect to CAFTA was in error when it was pointed out to me. I am also more than willing to discuss edits that might be controversial at the talk page if other edits express specific concerns. That said, removing all of my edits the way another editor just did, without regard to their content or merits, is very inappropriate. Organthief1949 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently you stated on Talk:Sherrod Brown "And I would not characterize the edits you reverted as "drastic." I simple re-organized content in a more rational manner and made other minor housekeeping-style changes in the particular edit you reverted." How bad would it be for you to propose these housekeeping-style changes ahead of time on the talk page, and waiting for comments? True housekeeping doesn't usually lead to a revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an edit war that I did not initiate. If you take a look at all the related comments, no one has actually expressed any opposition to the edit in question. The entirety of the objection made was based on the fact that it was me personally who made the edit. Unless it is imposed administratively, I am not going to abide by any requirement that I have to take every single edit I make to the talk page. That just is not reasonable. I will however discuss controversial changes, admit when I am wrong, and respect consensus even when it goes against me.Organthief1949 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're currently at 3RR, if you revert again today, you will likely be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]