User talk:Pipermantolisopa

Wikipedia needs serious improvement. I looked at 3-4 articles. All have vandalism or they are advertisements. I fixed them all (something in each article, but not all of the offending stuff). Pipermantolisopa 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edwards

I don't want it to read like an ad either - I think it's ok now - does it work for you? You might take a look at Ron Paul and the associated article about his presidential run, if these matters concern you. I've been trying to de-POV it for a while now, but it's close to a hopeless case. Tvoz |talk 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not locked, if you have comments. Tvoz |talk 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

locked pages

If a page is semi-protected, you have to be logged into a named account to edit, and new accounts can edit after (I think) 4 days. Unlocked pages can be edited by anyone, immediately. Talk pages of locked articles are generally not locked, so anons and newbies can leave notes there for others to incorporate, or not. Tvoz |talk 03:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're reading this (ok if not), I'm still locked out of R.Paul. Maybe it's 5 days. That article needs rewritting badly.Pipermantolisopa 01:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - it looks like you were able to edit Ron Paul this hour - the banner remains on the page for everyone, but it looks like your edits went through. Tvoz |talk 05:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edwards

yes, your change is an improvement over mine Tvoz |talk 05:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ron paul

ha - well, you can't worry about whether you're going to offend someone by removing their stuff - assume you will, but that's life on a wiki. Obviously, a tactful edit summary never hurts (although I laughed at your last one - and agree completely with your removal and your sarcasm) - and/or discussion on Talk, depending on what it is. But you know what they say, be bold - but give a rationale. I haven't looked at the article closely in the last couple of days so I don't know specifically what you're referring to, but it sounds like it may be another case of the editors on that page having little idea of what NPOV, notability and verifiability mean. I'll take a look when I have a few minutes. Tvoz |talk 07:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to...

Unfortunately, I think that I said it to the wrong IP editor. There were two IPs editing the page almost simultaneously. Nonetheless, the comparison of Obama to Edwards on health care is very interesting, but probably still better covered in an article about the primary rather than on Edwards' page. BTW: Welcome to wikipedia! I'm kind of in vandal fighting mode right now: you would be amazed how many people think that its original to write "so-and-so is gay!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs)

Hey, it's cool. We figured it out, made apologies. As a side note, I wasn't trying to be snippy about Ron Paul or that article when I made the comment about "comparison shopping". Haven't so much as looked at that article. There's some real edit wars going on over there? 67.70.13.72 06:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the first

No - I think I left in "the first" and took out "as of june only one other" - or at least that's what I meant to do - it's 2:30 AM so I am not responsible.... It's overkill to include the "as of june 2007" sentence. Tvoz |talk 06:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, you confirmed so I don't have to go back and look! Tvoz |talk 06:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN ref

I really do object to the CNN reference - it is an article about Obama's plan. It just doesn';t belong in the Edwards article, and the points that you're trying to use it as a citation for are covered completely by the USA Today reference. The CNN ref belongs in the Obama articles - I edit there too, and I'll see if it's there and add it if it isn't, but it is an article all about the Obama plan which is not the best way to bolster points about edwards' plan. We're not doing a comparison of the two in this article, as discussed by several editors. Tvoz |talk 06:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, more is not better - please read what I've said on this page and the article talk page - you have not justified the inclusion of a reference about the Obama plan in an article about Edwards which is specifically not comparing the two. Please don't just keep adding it without responding to objections - on the article's talk page, please, so others see it. Tvoz |talk 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring now - please stop and discuss this. It is an article about Obama's plan. Tvoz |talk 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding the reference. You have been overruled by several editors. Tvoz |talk 02:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have no idea what you're talking about when you say you have "submitted a third opinion about the use of the reference in the Edwards article" nor do I want to discuss this any more. The reference is inappropriate and you have been told so by several editors. Move on to something else. Tvoz |talk 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way-

I thought you said you weren't going to edit political articles anymore. Tvoz |talk 07:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Testing the water"? The Edwards article is not your sandbox for what you want to do on the Ron Paul article - and it won't work there either. Edit warring, not engaging in dialogue first, adding inappropriate references - as well as your clear POV on the subject as expressed on the talk page - is not the way to edit. I suggest you stop now, as this can easily lead to your being blocked from editing at all. I think you already know all of this, as I recognize your editing style. I'm done here. Tvoz |talk 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

This is far premature. As far as I can tell, you haven't had a through discussion on the talk page and haven't requested outside comments. Second, the wording of your mediation request is, to say the least, not very indicative of a conciliatory attitude. Finally, the argument is a bit lame. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines relating to sources in articles and neutral point of view. WP:5P is a good place to start. First and foremost, note that we never choose a source based merely on whether it is supportive of or in opposition to a political figure. · jersyko talk 03:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an eye on Hurricane High School (Utah)

Sure, I'll keep an eye on the article. A short comment on the current situation in the John Edwards article: It seems that things have gone out of hand because of a really minor thing (it's not even about article text, but just one reference). I understand your frustration, but the best solution in this case is probably to let it go. Instead of thinking about leaving wikipedia altogether I'd suggest just taking a break from that article. Take care/ Pax:Vobiscum 09:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Edwards.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

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) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]