User talk:Turtlescrubber
I know you're pissed...
[edit]...and I have no idea what your disputes have been to put you in such a mood or drive you away, but leaving inflammatory comments is clearly disruptive. This block will expire in 24 hours.
— Scientizzle 04:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted.
[edit]I wish you well. TableMannersC·U·T 05:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you'll come back
[edit]I hope that you'll come back after your block is lifted and that we and others will be able to continue to work together in good faith. It's terrible when we lose good editors to something like this. Keep your chin up! Qworty (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. For what it's worth, my reservations, which are still quite strong, are about the existing consensus seeming to have been based on the input of only editors who were previously involved in the article. I have contacted the Mormonism project, the 2008 election project, the Biography project, the politicans work group of that project, the Fringe theories noticeboard (the only place to leave undue weight concerns, even though for these purposes it is badly titled), and anyone else I could think of. As one of the more involved editors in the Biography project, I can say that to my eyes, having gone through probably too many biography articles, I cannot remember having ever seen such a section dealing with a dependent part of the subject's later career so early in the article, even before the content relating to that later career directly. To my eyes, as unfortunately one of the more knowledgable editors in that area, it very clearly does violate other extant wikipedia policy, and a consensus to violate an extant policy is at best dubiously a consensus. These concerns are particularly important considering the subject is also a living person, with WP:BLP entering into it as well.
- I've been called worse, and hold no grudges about namecalling. Like I've said earlier, I've done it before myself. Please realize however that there is possibly a fundamental problem with this article about potentially placing too much content on the religion subject in the parent article about Romney. I don't myself doubt such content deserves a very prominent place in the article on the campaign. But that is a separate article. The biography article is supposed to cover the life of the subject in a balanced, neutral way. Those interested specifically in the campaign, including its mudslinging, can go to that article. So far as I can tell, the subject's religion was not discussed particularly widely prior to his political career. On that basis, it seems to be dubious at best to place a lot of emphasis on something about other eras of the subject's life which were never emphasized during those eras themselves, even during his business career and role with the 2002 Olympics. We are not supposed to cater to what we think individuals want to read in the article, that's a violation of OR and POV. We are supposed to present a neutral, balanced, objective, verifiable summary of the subject. There are serious questions from several parties about whether including such a section so early in the article places it very much out of balance.
- I have added a section to the RfC which allows for an easier determination of how many editors hold certain opinions on the matter. I should have added it at the beginning, and apologize for having not done so. I very sincerely hope that you will place your own comments there as well. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Michael Bloomberg external links
[edit]Could you offer your advice regarding ChrisG nyc's repeated reversion of my removal of several non-notable, unsuited for inclusion, Bloomberg draft sites? Can he be blocked because they are clearly spam, or is this a case where it has to be discussed? With his last edit, he ignored a message I had placed on his talk page saying to discuss additions of links on the talk page before adding them. And, by the way, he is the creator of RunMikeRun.com. --Michael WhiteT·C 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hillary FA status
[edit]The FA nomination process for Hillary Rodham Clinton has restarted. Please consider voting on this issue. Thanks - QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)