User talk:Shunpiker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| (one) (two) |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- (responded at User talk:Bart Versieck)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Terry McAuliffe
Thanks for your intervention. GoldDragon (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
- (responded on GoldDragon's talk page.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
- (responded on Journalist1983's talk page.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
- (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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
[edit] Template?
Your opinion, please? Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
