User talk:Veritas399

Welcome!

Hello, Veritas399, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me my talk page. Again, welcome! dave souza, talk 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

Lancaster County's politics have often not been in sync with the rest of Pennsylvania or with the Northeast as a whole.

Says who? You don't have any citations showing where you got this.

Even when Pennsylvania strongly supported Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party, Lancaster was something of a Whig Party stronghold.

That may be true; I don't know. What does "something of a stronghold" mean? You don't have any citations showing where you got this.

The town and township of Clay are even named after the famous Whig politician Henry Clay.

Is it? Five minutes' search with Google (and I'm good with Google) and I can't find where you possibly got that information. Henry Clay lived from 1777-1852, and Lancaster County was organized into townships LONG before anyone knew Henry Clay's name. But even if it were true, you aren't showing where you got that information.

Lancaster supported the Presidential candidacy of native son (and Democrat) James Buchanan in 1856,

Did it? Did he get 99% of the local vote? Did he get 50.00001% of the vote? This was a stronghold for Thaddeus Stevens. Where did you get your information? Citation, please.

but has been a Republican stronghold ever since,

"Stronghold" is someone's opinion. Whose opinion are you citing? (You're aware of the Wikipedia:No Original Research rule, right?) What president did Lancaster County vote for in 1964? What about the election in 1932? Citation, please.

in spite of the many shifts in party loyalties and geographic bases across the US as a whole in the past 150 years.

Have there been *many* shifts in party loyalties and geographic bases across the US as a whole in the past 150 years? Seems to me that small businessmen and small towns have been Republican while labor unions and big cities have been Democrat over that period of time, but of course, that's my opinion. Where did *this* opinion come from? Citation, please.

Thaddeus Stevens, the noted Radical Republican, was Lancaster's representative in the House of Representatives until his death in 1868."

That's obviously misleading. Stevens was elected as a Whig from 1849-1853, and left office until 1859.

It would seem to me that politics would be a minor part of a general description of Lancaster County. It would seem that a very long table listing every single state and federal representative would be overkill.

Depends on what the user is looking for. There are only 8 state and 3 federal representatives, and that's certainly going to be of more use to someone who is wanting to write a letter on an issue than mentioning Thad multiple times and including his picture.

Wikipedia content needs to be verifiable. You can even get away with "Dr. Terry Madonna, foremost Pennsylvania political analyst and director of the Keystone Poll points out that Lancaster County voters are traditionally shitheads" if you include a footnote where someone can click to see that Madonna is who you say he is, and that he said what you say he said. Reporting that someone has an opinion is factual, and if you present all sides of any controversial issue, it can be NPOV.

If you've been paying any attention, I've been going through, one section at a time, and putting in citations where I can, and deleting unverifiable content, and replacing it when I can, with properly cited material. I don't object to there being mention of political leanings and trends; what I object to is a bunch of vague generalities unsupported by citations. Because that matter was *so* vague and opinionated, I thought it not worth my time to try to validate it - and Wikipedia policy does state that any editor is allowed to remove content that isn't unverifiable. But if you're interested in those paragraphs, it shouldn't be too hard for you to "clean up" that material to meet Wikipedia standards, and put it back into the article. (And I hope you do.) ClairSamoht 19:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LC2

The table didn't replace the paragraphs. Those paragraphs were deleted quite a while ago, when we started the current push to upgrade the article to Good Article status. (We'd like to get to Featured Article status, eventually.) There were some additional paragraphs which had part of the information in the tables which were removed when the table went in, though. There's someone who doesn't log in, who just has an IP address, who adds back those paragraphs every so often, and they get deleted again within an hour or two. I just assumed that you were the one who keeps adding back those paragraphs.

Yes, it's interesting. It's even more interesting if it's true. But "true" isn't the standard for Wikipedia - it's verifiability. But the fact that the information is interesting is why I said I hope you "clean up" the paragraphs so they can go back in. Interesting is what we should strive for. ClairSamoht 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR warning

Hi Veritas399. You currently seem to be involved in an edit war at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Please note that Wikipedia has a rule limiting reversions to 3 in any 24 hour period, where a reversion is broadly defined as any edit that (partially) undoes a change by another editor. If you violate this rule, you will very likely be blocked. You can read all the details at WP:3RR, and you can see the rule in action at WP:ANI/3RR. Happy editing! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd do well to join the dicussion on the talk page. To me you seem to be playing a game with us and I'd love to be proven wrong. Angry Christian (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update about User Angry Christian. Not sure what she meant by playing games. Asked her on her page, waiting for response.Jeremy (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)veritas399[reply]

Veritas: NPOV tags are supposed to be accompanied by talkpage discussions explaining what the problem is. You keep failing to provide any such summary, which is why your tag keeps getting removed. In particular, "Please refer to the discussion tab to view the pov dispute" is not helpful, because that brings up a vast block of discussion (much of it regarding issues long since resolved), with no indication of what the alleged current problem is. I note that you have actually never posted anything at all on the article's discussion page. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion page is full of examples of slanted pov. I gave the example of only 2 very negative reviews quoted (in 2nd paragraph) even when the article mentioned positive reviews from other sources. I included 1 positive review which my fellow esteemed editor [User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] then flagged as pushing pov! Just the very long discussion page should indicate that the article does NOT have a neutral point of view Jeremy (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)veritas399[reply]

Update: still no information identifying any specific, ongoing dispute. You have now reached your 3RR limit. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent the facts. As I have already explained to you (on my userpage), the removal of the review was not due to NPOV, but relevance. My "POV edits" revert was due to another edit-warring incident by you, replacing "film" with "documentary film" in defiance of consensus (which was that "film" was neutral between "documentary film" and "propaganda film"), and removal of "scientific" from "scientific theory of evolution". --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked this user for persistant edit warring, despite numerous warnings and in violation of wp:3rr Raul654 (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Veritas399 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked since April 24th. Interestingly the change I requested that Raul654 blocked me for has been implemented by other users. The block seems to just keep moving forward. It now says I'm blocked until May 1. (I have not edited any pages since April 24. Anyway, since the corrections to the article have been put in by other users, I don't really need to edit, but it seems pointless to keep blocking me for changes that were implemented anyway.Jeremy (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)veritas399[reply]

Decline reason:

You've only been blocked once, and that block should expire on Thursday, May 1. You failed to address the reason for your block, and so will not be unblocked, but remember that when you're edit warring, it doesn't matter in the long run who was "right," if anyone, just that by edit warring, you were causing disruption, and therefore were blocked. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.