User talk:Shunpiker/Archive 3

terry mcauliffe

i am going by memory, but question 3 of the poll showed a huge swing before and after the convention, and the swing -- my recollection -- was in excess of 20 points (before the convention gore was 10 pts behind and after the convention he was 10 pts ahead, a 20-pt bounce). every poll was consistent with that, and no one reasonably disputes it. i am happy to provide other polls, but this is a reputable poll, and i think it should be on you to show me a poll that disagrees with it, as opposed to my having to do more research. respectfully, Journalist1983 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links vs references

I really thought references always had to be referring to statements within the articles themselves, unlike external links? Extremely sexy (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responded at User talk:Bart Versieck)

Providence meetup

There is now a planning page to arrange a meetup in Providence. Please sign up if you are interested. --mikeu (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry McAuliffe

Thanks for your intervention. GoldDragon (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have your help on this? If it was an issue of McAulliffe seeking re-election as DNC chair, I don't see the major controversy in this, though I can live with it being removed. But I don't see any other reason why the rest of my contribution is labelled as a POV attack. GoldDragon (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the best way to fix the problem of undue weight? Would it be good enough to say that McAuliffe's attacks on Bush have merited why he is worthy of scrutiny in his own business interests? GoldDragon (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responded on GoldDragon's talk page.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's obvious to me you're working together -- so one must factor that in based on your view of the substance. if you and your friend want to discuss controversies content on the discussion page, i will be glad to do it. the problem is your friend wants to RV and then discuss. WP errs on the side of caution re living people. stop reverting then we can discuss.Journalist1983 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responded on Journalist1983's talk page.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threaten me all you like; this is an inappropriate manner to handle it. The content is contentious, and i will remove it until a consensus is reached.

Here is a quote from WP:living persons:

"Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy."

The content being protected by you and Gold Dragon contains poorly sourced contentious material. You are the one who should be warned. Again, I am willing to discuss it on a talk page, but absent a good-faith effort to discuss I will continue to revert. This is the silly season of politics, and -- without questioning your intentions personally -- this article has been the victim of repeated partisan attacks which have no place in WP.Journalist1983 (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: I had warned Journalist1983 using uw-3rr; I responded on Journalist1983's talk page, making a second request that he avail himself of WP:BLPN. He continually blanks his user talk page, hence this running narrative.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE -- You didn't warn your friend for same problem. You cannot be trusted as unbiased in this discussion.Journalist1983 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1983, you're just as entitled to my friendship as GoldDragon is, and in fact, you and I have a somewhat longer history together. -- Shunpiker (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piker, you don't have to take orders but you have to be fair. Treat Bush the same way you treat mcauliffe. that way, if you want this issue to get a full vetting, it will. otherwise it looks as if WP is being not even-handed and partisan. Thanks.Journalist1983 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist1983, what's stopping you from editing the article about George H.W. Bush if you feel so strongly about it? I understand that there are legitimate grounds for a difference of opinion about Terry McAuliffe's dealings with Global Crossing, and I have asked you to join me in third-party dispute resolution at least five times. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) It seems that rather than engage community decision-making, you prefer to carry out a one-person edit war. -- Shunpiker (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Terry McAuliffe. 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. Journalist1983 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frivolous warning. The only reverts that I have recently made to the Terry McAuliffe article are reverts of reverts, to restore content which Journalist1983 has deleted. His rationale for deleting the content consistently boils down to ad-hominem attacks on other editors, most recently by way of proclaiming that other editors "don't understand" the subject matter -- the apparent litmus test of expertise being whether or not you hold the same opinion. For the record:

Should things continue like this, Journalist1983 will run afoul of WP:3RR first, and I'm tempted to give him enough rope. I hate edit wars, but it's hard to be an edit pacifist when you can't get more people involved in the discussion.

Journalist1983 has refused continuous offers of mediation. I don't think he's going to give up tendentious editing of the McAuliffe article as long as he believes he can ultimately have his way. My interest in the article is much less about the subject matter than it is about not letting bullies run the playground. -- Shunpiker (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in editing on subjects about which i have expertise. You clearly do not share that philosophy. That's a problem. Instead you turn to wikilawyering, trying to re-interpret rules and policies. Most regrettable.Journalist1983 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J1983, what I do not share is your assessment of your expertise, nor your assessment of my supposed incompetence in this domain. I am, however, entirely convinced that you believe that you are an expert and than anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Regrettable, indeed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template?

Your opinion, please? Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 15 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harlem Riot of 1935, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rating importance of articles

Hi, there Shunpiker. I'm still trying to figure out how to rate the importance of Project Alaska articles. I see you've got your own problems here; but when you have a chance, if you know, please let me know how to do this. I couldn't figure it out from the rating project pages...Deirdre (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responded on Deirdre's talk page) -- Shunpiker (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelypages

Well, I've started beating the drum. Here's a writeup I did on the Village Pump looking for comment; I'll keep you posted. --JaGa^talk 00:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska stub

I'd like to see if we can decide on a name for the northernmost region for Alaska stubs; would you please return to the discussion to give more input? Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HBC and Alaska

Just saw your removal of the Alaska tempalte from the HBC article; the idea with that is that there were HBC posts/activity in what is now Alaska (Forts Stikine and Taku/Durham) plus the HBC's lease of most of the Alaska Panhandle from the RAC 1838-1867; I think there was an HBC trade post at Skagway too (or Dyea or Haines?), before it was overrun by Americans (remember from the BC perspective that area was under dispute...), and wasn't there one in the Yukon basin west of what's now the boundary?Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responded on User talk:Skookum1)

oOoOh, sparkly

The Alaskan Barnstar

Everytime I open my watchlist I have four or five instances of you assessing articles for WikiProject Alaska. Just didn't want you to think all your hard work is going unrecognized! L'Aquatique[chitchat] 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirect-Class Oregon articles

Hi, I reverted your edits to this. I'm thinking you wanted to use it as a template for Alaska but forgot to change the title? Katr67 (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responded on User talk:Katr67)