User talk:Trilemma/Archive 2

Julia Speller, TUCC

- - Please look at the edits by myself and the anon IP and voice an opinion. Thanks and cheers.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

May 2008

- - Thanks for experimenting with the page What Happened on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use ml Trilemma (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

Response on user's talk page. Correct link is here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/McAuliffe_doesnt_like_McClellan_book_either.html

- -

Oh, okay. Well, either way, I've removed the section completely, as blogs are not reliable sources. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

HOWEVER, I am sure you can find a way around that, as Dole's letter was reported on Countdown and other RS's. ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

Let's consolidate discussion here. ;-) No, we just need more than a blog (yes, those are blogs). If worse comes to worst, I'll dig up the episode information for Countdown that contains the dole email. This has nothing to do with content, only with citations... if you need help just let me know! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - -

Sorry, made an edit on your page before viewing this. Trilemma (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

Updated article sources: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/05/31/2008-05-31_bob_dole_rips_into_scott_mcclellan-3.html

- and

- http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=243583

- Trilemma (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Great. Do you need help using {{cite}} templates? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

I have a handy button for it. I think it'd be wise to determine what precisely we want to include from the emails and comments. What do you feel is most relevant for inclusion? Trilemma (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

I think we have an excellent example contained in Scott McClellan, regarding the dole letter. However, can you tell me more about the second source (kxmc.com)? It also looks like a politically oriented blog not attached to an inherently reliable source... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

The second one is a fresh story and is just growing. The AP doesn't yet have a story on it but one should come. But politico is an acceptable source:

- "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources

- The authors of the blogs on politico have been published plenty of other places, featured on blogginheads.tv, etc. so under these guidelines they warrant inclusion. Trilemma (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Also from ABC's coverage: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/mcclellens-book.ht

- -

I believe that the circumstances of a self-published blog coupled with a partisan POV makes it highly unlikely that such a source would be the best choice. I'm sure that the statements are covered (and likely more neutrally presented) in other, perhaps more appropriate, media outlets. Let's try to use those instead. ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

I did a quick search through both the AP and Reuters and didn't find an article as of yet. Also I find the 'partisan' charge a bit questionable; the standards for inclusion mention nothing of personal feelings in regards to a given subject. Martin is a professional journalist with a substantial resume; moreover, we're not even including his words. And there's also the ABC reference ;) Trilemma (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

Also, if partisanship is a concern, why did you offer Countdown? You don't get more partisan than Keith Oberman. Trilemma (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

You misunderstand... partisan self-published sources are a concern. Countdown is a bit different, as it is a nationally broadcast television show sponsored by one of the largest news outlets in the world; the blog ("with an emphasis on the GOP", if I recall the tagline correctly) is another thing entirely. Please note that I haven't made any additional edits or concerns, as I believe the same material can easily be sourced elsewhere (if it does indeed have legs, and isn't just part of some partisan hackery). My point is simply that the blog isn't the best source, given the SPS and NPOV concerns. Cheers. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

I think that you're misinterpreting the division of the politico blogs. Instead of having one blog for both parties, the site gives the two respective blogs for two accomplished professional journalists with more experience covering the side they're covering on politico. The SPS guidelines seem to be in response to the proliferation of amateur blogs--something from a site named obamafan2342.blogspot.com or mccainiac321.blogspot.com wouldn't meet the guidelines. But blogs like Politico, the New Republic's Plank and Stump, and The National Review's Corner and Campaign Spot are extensions of professional entities. And while all, under the exceptions to SPS, warrant inclusion in articles, sites like Politico and realclearpolitics stand out even more due to their non-partisan mission. Trilemma (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

AfD nomination of Otis Moss III

-

I have nominated Otis Moss III, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otis Moss III. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Citations

- - While it's not a requirement, if you use citation templates it makes references much easier to decipher. Check out WP:CITE. Cheers. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Obama '08

- Wondered if you think my edits are out of line at that page? Looks like a lot of spoon feeding on that page.CheersDie4Dixie (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

June, 2008

- - You seem to be edit warring over controversial information you wish to insert in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article for which you have not established consensus.[1][2]

- [3][4] That is four identical reversions in 32 hours, very close to a WP:3RR violation. You also seem to be carrying this matter to the point of hostility to other editors you disagree with.[5][6][7][8] I urge you to avoid edit warring, and to keep your comments within the bounds of civility. Thank you. Wikidemo (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - You have some good points to make, but hostility and referring to good faith edits as vandalism doesn't help your cause. Incidentally, I took out the whole "Opposing forces" section out of the McCain article. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

Second caution - this edit and edit summary[9] are contentious and borderline uncivil. You are edit warring by reverting information while making accusaitons of another editor. I would revert you, but I do not wish to join in an edit war. Wikidemo (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

It's perfectly reasonable to discuss the wording of the paragraph and reach a consensus compromise text. It is not, however, appropriate to do as you did, reverting all criticism of Obama. Trilemma (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

My edit was explained, and correct. The criticism had undue weight and relevancy problems, among other issues explained in the talk page and edit summary. Without any basis you accused me of blanking, pushing a POV, and removing material because I do not like it, essentially bad faith editing. That kind of contentiousness makes the working environment less productive. Moreover, as the person proposing to add disputed content it is your responsibility to establish consensus, not mine to prove that it should be deleted. Wikidemo (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Much of it was material that others added. Now, as it is, there was a huge backlash against Obama's decision. The Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, New York Times, New York Post, Washington Post, USA Today etc. all condemned the decision. Are you really going to try to insist that this is somehow inconsequential or undue weight? The Obama general election article is, in general, too small right now. It needs development and that development will come. But to try to remove a very significant controversy because the rest of the article hasn't been developed yet would distort the coverage. Trilemma (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

We can discuss the details on the article pages, but no, coverage as the political news of the day in major newspapers does not by itself establish weight. It may feel "huge" but most issues like this quickly fade. We do not know how big an issue Obama's rejection of public funding will be as the election progresses, but as total speculation I will guess very small outside the pundit and talk show circuit and not one that will affect the voters because the public does not much care and McCain has his own vulnerability on the issue. The underlying issue of how much money each candidate has to spend, and the potential collapse (for now at least) of public campaign finance are probably a lot more important than the controversy over them. Wikidemo (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

I'll reply on the discussion page of the article. Trilemma (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Protection template on Political positions of John McCain

- - I'm curious why you placed a protection template on this page when it wasn't actually protected. If you think it should be protected (which might not be a bad idea, given this Beach Boys stuff that won't go away) then the proper venue is to take it to WP:RFPP since only admins can protect pages. Oren0 (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

Oh, I was trying to request a protection for it. Needless to say, I didn't know what I was doing ;) Trilemma (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Mischaracterizations

- - Please do not use misleading language regarding other editors' contributions. This was clearly per our undue weight policy (WP:UNDUE), and certainly wasn't "blanking" (a form of vandalism) as you stated here. If you feel it should be included, please explain why you believe we should ignore the longstanding policy on the talk page. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Regarding this message, I don't think I've edited the "Obama article" you referenced. If you're referring to your misleading edit summary of "rv blanking", I highly encourage you to read our vandalism policy and perhaps ask elsewhere if my point is valid. If you meant to refer to What Happened, if you still insist on inserting undue criticism, I again encourage you to explain why you believe we should ignore our undue weight policy and the neutral point of view. The best place to do so is at the talk page. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

Reply found here: [10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Internment Trilemma (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Political positions of John McCain

- - I commented on one issue on the Talk page. It looks like the "bomb Iran" thing has been worked out -- or did I misunderstand that?

- - I'm actually kindof surprised the page is as calm as it is. You should see Talk:Barack Obama! I've had it on my watchlist, and have been loosely following some of teh dramaz surrounding it, but I'm definitely not jumping into that fray, no no no ;) The McCain page is tame in comparison, heh.. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political positions of John McCain. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I know you feel you are upholding consensus, and maybe you are. However, edit warring will not be tolerated (rest assured if AzureFury continues to revert, I will issue him a notice as well). Jaysweet (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply found here [11] Trilemma (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labor and environmental protections in trade agreements

You're certainly entitled to favor removing this McCain position from Political positions of John McCain. What I don't understand is why you keep bringing up this "renegotiation" point. You have no source buttressing your opinion that labor and environmental protections arise only in the context of proposed renegotiation of trade agreements. Furthermore, I provided you with a link showing that the issue arises in the context of initial approval or rejection of a proposed agreement.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. I believe your comment on your RfC at Talk:Political positions of John McCain is actively misleading. Am I missing something here? (Also, note that the template was messed up somehow.) JamesMLane t c 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain article

Indeed, I am not at all interested in trying to present McCain contradicting himself (just for the sake of it), nor to make votes seem bad by being misleading. (And, not that I'm taking this personally, but to assume that I reverted your removal of information (with no edit summary) because I'm trying to push a POV is not assuming good faith, even though it might be a problem you often run into). I'm actually quite interested in knowing what's true and accurate, and if for inclusion in wiki, I also want it to not be misleading and be reliably sourced. If you say that the statement you removed was incomplete and thus violated NPOV, then I agree that it makes sense to have removed it.

Now to the specific situation at hand. I've just read the boston.com article that is referred to, and (though it is indeed entirely possible that the article is misleading) it does seem to say that (if McCain opposes all cigarette taxes now as you say) his position has changed quite recently. And my understanding of the "political positions" page is that it is supposed to reflect the politician's positions over time, not just his current ones.

Furthermore, the boston.com article places both McCain's statement of regret over the '98 bill not passing, and his statement of opposition of the 61 cent bill in october of last year. In addition, McCain's opposition to the 61 cent tax appears to be that he doesn't agree with the logic of that specific tax. For these two reasons, it's not clear to me that he opposes cigarette tax.

I do think that the statement about the '98 tax is misleading and I will add that it was to fund programs to cut underage smoking.

I think that the boston.com article currently referenced supports the content in the wiki article and that that content is relevant, so my opinion is to keep it in there (with the small amendment I just mentioned). However, if you find some articles that show that the boston.com article is wrong or misleading I'm fully willing to remove the content. Or if you even just want to discuss the points I've made above, I never enter a discussion unwilling to change my opinion. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Barack Obama

Note that another editor recognized the unencyclopedic nature of your edit. I don't wish to argue, I only wish to notify you that your conduct is inappropriate. Trilemma (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop arguing and work on improving the article, rather than highhandedly scolding other users and escalating conflict. Your last edit to the article was itself rather manipulative and editorializing. Would you like me to enumerate the ways for you? — goethean ॐ 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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