User talk:A Stop at Willoughby/Archive 1

Christopher Reed
Welcome to Wikipedia! I've recently commented on an article you created - Christopher Reed at its talk page. If you're interested in editing articles in Iowa, you may also be interested in joining WikiProject Iowa. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Myers
Removing cited, sourced material from pages, as you did with the Chris Myers page, is considered vandalism and violates Wikipedia's rules. Please refrain from continued vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaulknerAbsalom (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, you're the one who needs to explain yourself concerning your suggested edits. Simply put: whether you like the facts cited in an entry or not, if such citations are included with a source and directly relevant, then they should be left as is. I've been going through edits with the Myers and Adler pages, both of which have negative and positive information on them, with multiple users. We found a pragmatic compromise before you came and edited out entire paragraphs and entire categories from the Myers page (There's a "Controversies" category under Adler, too, for example). We've also included different moderators into the discussion in order to mediate disagreements. This was pragmatic and emphasized a compromise. Deleting that material, which is cited correctly and balanced in each article (much of it is), does indeed constitute vandalism.FaulknerAbsalom (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure why information that was in the original article -- Myers' fundraiser with Bush, the Jamestown Associates controversy, his refusal to answer on SCHIP the first time -- have been taken out in the name of efficiency and expediency. Culling down information is one thing; but taking out entire sections because one doesn't like the material included is another. If you keep all the factual material in there, including polling information, and merely cull it down, I won't revert the edits. Malicious or not, one cannot take out entire sections of an article because it doesn't suit their liking. Again, those of us on both sides of the issue have come to a compromise on the issue before these massive edits were inserted.FaulknerAbsalom (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the newspaper article endorsements, as long as the length given to the Asbury Park Press endorsement (which includes a quotation) is the same for every Adler newspaper endorsement. What I don't agree with is the polling information deleted, the Bush fundraiser reference deleted, and the Jamestown material deleted; anything else deleted, including his SCHIP position, needs to be included, though I'm open to moving such material to "Controversies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaulknerAbsalom (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The changes make sense, and I see your logic behind each one. Thank you for leaving in some of the material we discussed. Since I now see how much more efficient many of your edits are, perhaps we should even change the polling info to a few sentences "Real Clear Politics and... list Adler as favored, while the Cook Report... list the race as a toss up." Appreciate the civility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaulknerAbsalom (talk • contribs) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Universities!
 Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Universities! Our goals are to standardize the structure and content of all college and university articles, improve Wikipedia's coverage of these articles (hopefully propelling them to featured article status), and serve as the central resource for all discussions and information related to colleges and universities on Wikipedia.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The university infobox is one way we hope to standardize our coverage of university articles. All university pages should have this infobox, and relevant fields should be filled in and sourced.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has a few expanding departments, which handle article quality assessment, member recruitment and project awareness and article improvement collaborations.
 * We have a Student Affairs task force that focuses on Student affairs-specific articles.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
 * Check out our to do list to get started!

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask one of the project participants or post a question on the talk page. We'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! — - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  17:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Died in office
I think "Died in office" is redundant in these cases. Everybody dies, but its the death in office that makes it noteworthy here. Some resign from office, some retire from office, some are removed from office, and some die in office. —Markles 13:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ghadam-Ali Sarami
Hi A Stop at Willoughby. You may have seen that I commented on the AfD on the above-captioned article. Many of my edits are tagging for notability or deletion (speedy, prod, or AfD) articles at the end (the old end) of the new page patrol. My view is that after a month, pretty much all pages should at least make material claims that clearly would demonstrate notability if referenced (which this article currently does not do). If the article is renominated after a decent period without improvement, I will probably have the view that it merits deletion. Rgds, Bongo  matic  09:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for November 2008
SoxBot II (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for December 2008
SoxBot II (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for February 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism on "John Adler"
Re your message: I left a warning for the last editor to reinsert the "incident". There has been no activity since the warning, so blocking would not be appropriate at this time. But if they come back, that would be a different matter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NJ thanks
I wanted to thank you for your work on behalf of WP:NJ, including your updates and additions such as reflecting the recent death of Eric Munoz. I saw your James Beach article (see above), added a bit of content, and nominated the article for DYK. While I had spent a tremendous amount of time creating articles for every legislator, other preoccupations have meant that some things have slipped through my cracks. I'm glad that you've stepped up and beaten me to the punch in reflecting New Jersey legislative changes. Thanks for all your efforts. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for March 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for May 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
Hello,

I am giving you this as a courtesy copy because you were among those who supported the deletion of this article. It is the text I sent to the Admin who deleted the article.

Cheers

 Hello,

I was very interested in the fact that this article was deleted, well astounded might be the correct word. I read with interest the deletion log and I understand that the article has very little chance of passing. However I must assert that this does not mean that it is below the threshold of notability. I did a little research to see exactly how notable this bill is.

I went to http://stats.grok.se/ to look up how often this article was viewed:


 * Jan 2009 - 577 views
 * Feb 2009 - 4487 views
 * Mar 2009 - 3016 views
 * Apr 2009 - 2321 views
 * May 2009 - 6826 views
 * total   - 17227 views

Even after it was deleted, in June, the deletion page was viewed 92 times.

To be fair, however, I ran view statistics for 10 random articles to see if the Blair Holt article received more views. Of the 10 I looked up, only two got more hits. This is hardly enough for a true statistical comparison, but it would indicate that the article was getting more hits than the majority of Wikipedia articles. This seems to indicate notability.

Next I went to Google to see how many Web hits I would get if I looked it up. For Blair Holt bill, I get 1,120,000 hits. I went to Google News and discovered there have been thousands of news stories on the bill as well.

As a final note, I was at the Utah State Republican convention where it was brought up and discussed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, which indicates that despite the fact that there is only one sponsor, the bill is receiving considerable buzz in congress.

The bill is notable for another reason. It delegates powers reserved for the congress in the Constitution (the right to make laws) to one person, namely the Attorney General.

Given all this, I can only conclude that the article, and the bill are indeed notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration,

J appleseed2 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for June 2009
SoxBot (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

NJ Gubernatorial 2009
Willoughby - I understand your argument, but I'm not sure I agree with what you have done over at NJE2009, the labels "Major" and "Minor" are (widely held) opinion and have no legal meaning. I do agree that Mr. Daggett, by virtue of qualifying for matching funds, probably should be treated differently than the other Independents - in fact I was struggling with how to deal with it when I came across your entry there. HerbertMMarx (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Christie's link to the Mafia etc.
Willoughby - I am not sure how bolding the date of an event is considered vandalism. This article is very long and bolding the date /main headline allows readers to find particular information by scanning the article. You also removed the blurb about the Christie family link to NJ mafia citing it is defamatory. While it may be defamtory, its the truth and as the blurb stated something he hid from the FBI during their background check of him for the AG job.


 * 68.46.132.117, thanks for voicing your concerns. First of all, let me address your bolding of certain phrases in New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009. While I assume good faith, I think it was pretty clear from the phrases you chose to bold that you were editing with an anti-Christie agenda. However, regardless of whether that's true or not, bolding phrases like that to "allow readers to find particular information by scanning the article" is fine for a blog post that's pushing a particular point of view but it's not okay for a neutrally written encyclopedia entry. Therefore, your bolding of certain phrases was not appropriate.


 * The paragraphs about Chris Christie's familial link to the Mafia, which you added to Christopher J. Christie and New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009, were apparently libellous or defamatory when I first came across them, hence my reversions. It was also difficult to determine quickly whether or not they were libellous or defamatory because they were improperly cited, either citing blog posts (which failed to meet WP:RS) or failing to cite specific sources at all. When you add material to Wikipedia, you must cite reliable sources; if you add uncited or poorly cited material to a biography of a living person, it will probably be removed, especially if it can be considered controversial. The "Mafia link" paragraphs certainly could.


 * However, I now see that you've added the "Mafia link" paragraphs back into the Christopher J. Christie article, this time citing reliable sources. I appreciate that. Unfortunately it seems to me that those paragraphs are not written from an entirely neutral point of view, and I'm concerned that the additions give the issue undue weight. I'll fix them up in the near future – probably tomorrow. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A Stop at Willoughby Thanks for the clarification, as you are probably aware new contributors such as myself are not aware of the intricate details. I looked up libelous here and it stated that defamatory comments could not be made unless they were truthful. As you noted the paragraphs are not entirely written from a neutral point of view, but when you are dealing with something a defamatory as a major candidates connection to the mafia, its not easy to be neutral. Even downplaying the connection gives a point of view slanted toward Christie and disfavors his opponents. I appreciate you taking the time to make the references more neutral as my personal bias toward Christie makes it difficult to present such a view.


 * However, since the election is only about two weeks away, I appreciate you making the changes at your earliest convenience so readers can be made aware of the connection and be given the opportunity to form their own opinion on the subject.


 * 68.46.132.117, don't worry about it. Wikipedia policy is almost overwhelmingly massive and it takes a while to get a good grasp of it. I agree that it is not easy to be neutral on this subject, but I believe that the edits I've made at Christopher J. Christie today have done a decent job of keeping a neutral tone and not giving the topic undue weight. For example, instead of saying that Christie "failed to disclose" his familial tie with a mobster, it now says that he "did not raise the issue." I'm not seeking to downplay the connection to try and benefit his opponents; I'm just trying to keep it as neutral and unencyclopedic as possible.


 * Hopefully you're okay with my changes. And if not, feel free to make some more changes of your own; be bold. And if you live in NJ like I do, don't forget to vote in two weeks. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2009
SoxBot (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)