User talk:75.61.78.77

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 2008

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:67.162.143.161, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Grsz11 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Grsz11 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


    • please take a look at what this argument was about. The other user was deleting information regarding superdelegates who had pledged their support for hillary clinton despite their constituents support for Obama. I have been editing pages of superdelegates who's pledged support contradicts the votes of their districts, in order to make that fact known. I have been doing so whether the superdelegate went for obama or clinton. My stance is clearly NPOV, and the other user has only edited pages where I or someone else indicated that Clinton was the beneficiary of a superdelegate casting a vote in contradiction of their constituents. They are the one violating NPOV. Due to the recent incidents where political operatives have edited wikipedia to their own ends, I told this other user that if I was to discover that their IP was linked to a campaign office, I'd make that fact known to the press. That is not a threat. That is not a personal attack. That is an attempt to let someone know that integrity and NPOV matter on wikipedia, and that people who violate it should be called out. I made no threat to identify the user personally. This user's aggressive reaction and repeated declaration that superdelegate information is "irrelevant" clearly show that they are acting in the interests of non-neutrality.
I am acting in the interest of someone who understands that this entire controversy of whether superdelegates should vote with the "will" of their district has been invented by supporters of both candidates and the media. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and should be based on factual information. It's not a blog or a newspaper or a current events listing. And your threats to track my IP address and take action off of Wikipedia was in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines.Smart Ways (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Also note that the reason I was, as you claim, "the other user has only edited pages where I or someone else indicated that Clinton was the beneficiary of a superdelegate casting a vote in contradiction of their constituents." is because I have, with the exception to Ted Kennedy whose article I already changed to remove that bias, yet to find one instence where you or anyone else has edited an article pointing out that a Superdelegate supporting Obama is casting their vote "in condratiction of their constituents." All of the Superdelegate articles who fit I've found so far that fit that bill just say, "So and So has endorsed Barack Obama for President." Something I find kind of ironic in light of your accusations directed toward the imaginary categorization as me as a "biased Clinton political operative." --Smart Ways (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand you're argument. It, however, has little merit. They way you are presenting it is very POV. There is no requirement for a superdelegate to vote the way their district did, that's the whole purpose of them being an unpledged superdelegate. It's a part of the Democratic party process. They don't have to vote either way, and it's biographically insignificant. These votes aren't going to decide the election, they aren't significant in any way. What you did was specifically illegal on Wikipedia, as you threatened the other user. You're argument that you are being censored has no substinence. I'm an Obama supporter, and I took it out as well. Grsz11 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not they're required to vote with their district is irrelevant to my argument. The controversy surrounds the fact that the democratic party is engaging in an undemocratic process. It's been all over the news for weeks. And how am I POV, when the person I argued with is only removing this sort of information from Clinton-friendly superdelegates? I will continue to revert the article.
I removed it from Kennedy's article as well. I will continue to work with the others who seem to think that your revisions are not appropriate and will ask for protection of the article should you continue to revert the changes. Smart Ways (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are making edits based on a belief that the democratic party is being undemocratic, then you ARE being POV, as the term is understood in Wikipedia.
If someone else is being POV, that doesn't prove you aren't. Maybe you both are. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I see you added the note:

"There is an ongoing controversy as to whether or not superdelegates who vote against the will of their constituents are subverting democracy, or simply doing what they are entitled to do by the rules of the Democratic Party."

to the Maxine Waters article.

If this statement is true, (and personally I have no reason to doubt it) it has a much better chance of staying in the article if there are news stories about this controversy which can be given as references. Stories in major papers or in papers local to Maxine Waters district are most significant.

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be addressed in the Superdelegate article or a Democratic 2008 article and not that of individual memeber of Congress? I mean, the election is going to be over in a couple of months. Smart Ways (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless reliable sources indicate it is an important issue that is being raised in regard to Ms Waters, then I think it doesn't belong here. For example, when she announced her support for Clinton, was there a major outcry of protest? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Suggested Solution/Compromise

How about this. Clearly I need much help on formatting, editing, etc.

I'd love for you and others to help me develop this article. I've got to run to work but will be back tonight to work on it more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Democratic_Primaray_Superdelegate_Controversies_2008 Smart Ways (talk)