User talk:Arbor8/Archive1

Hogwash left on my talk page by Arbor832466
Editorial disagreements should not be called vandalism, and you should not call someone a vandal just because they make an edit you disagree with. If you do so, you may run afoul of the no personal attacks policy; you'd be better off adhering to avoid personal remarks instead!--InaMaka (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Arbor832466 the following is a copy of your unhelpful comments:
 * Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review: Avoid the word "vandal"--InaMaka (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me help out. The edit that I made was NOT vandalism.  It was a valid edit.  Now, you might not have agreed with the edit, but do not engage in behavior that involves untruthful statements.--InaMaka (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverting unconstructive edits, with an explanation on the Talk page, is not a personal attack. Please assume good faith, focus comments on the articles, adhere to WP:Civility and refrain from speculating about other editors motivations, as you did with User:Gobonobo, User:Myownworst , and User:Stonemason89 . Will also leave a note on your Talk page. Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's go over this one more time for your understanding. You don't seem to understand clearly what the rules of Wikipedia are.  Let me assist you because I really want you to understand the Wikipedia policy that have violated twice.  I realize that you must be an new editor because your edit count indicates that you have only made 44 edits total.  Here we go:  You called my edit vandalism.  The fact that you called my edit vandalism--when it was clearly NOT vandalism--violates the policies of Wikipedia.  Please review this page: Wikipedia Template condemning the exact behavior of Arbor832466.  Also, I did not question your motives.  What I did was tell you in no uncertain terms not to call my edit vandalism when it was not vandalism.  Now, you might not like the policy of Wikipedia.  You might not like how I said what I said.  You might not like the substance of the edit for whatever reason, but that does not provide you the right to call my edit vandalism when it was not vandalism.  That is called "Crying Vandalism" and it used to remove information that you don't like without having to go through the process of gaining consensus.  You did not follow the proper procedure to obtain consensus.  What you did was revert my edit and then call it vandalism when it was clearly not vandalism.  Do NOT engage in a pattern of not telling the truth.  You have now engaged in two false statements:  (1)  you called my edit vandalism when it was not vandalism and (2) you claim that I engaged in incivility when I dealt with Gobonobo misuse of the revert process and his misuse of the warning templates.  Once again, I did not engage in incivility I told Gobonobo in no uncertain terms that his misuse of the revert process and his misuse of the warning templates violates Wikipedia policy and I told him that I would call him on it each and every time he does it.  But this talk page is not about Gobonobo, but it is about you and your particular misuse of the warning templates.  You called my edit--which was a valid edit--vandalism because you did not like my edit from an editorial point of view.  It is as simple as that.  Now, if you want to continue this discussion I'm willing to repeat for you over and over again how you are violating Wikipedia policy when you "Cry Vandalism" every time someone makes an edit that you don't agree with.  I have reviewed your other edits to other articles and I will continue to do that in the future to look for signs of more attempts by you to call edits you don't like vandalism.  I don't know how I can be more clear than I have been in this posting.  But let me repeat for you one more time.  You violate Wikipedia policy when you call a valid edit vandalism simply because you don't like the edit from an editorial point of view.  Please stop this behavior immediately.  You seem to provide general good work to the project, but you must stop calling edits you don't like vandalism when they are clearly NOT vandalism.  Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Boccieri, Hill, and Carney
I left a reply on the Hill talk page to discuss these matters further. I used the word "claim" in my original copy as one of the ways to attempt to impart neutrality. Was it my obligation to report on other issues related to the elections or just other opposing views on the issue at hand?

ProLifeDC (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was more worried about selection bias than your actual wording, which if I recall correctly was pretty even-handed. Basically, if we include one interest group's attack ad, then we should include every interest group's attack ads, as well as all interest groups ads in support of the candidate. It would just get kind of out of control. Not convinced it was notable enough to merit inclusion over any other ad/opposition. Does Americans United for Life have any kind of grading/rating system? We could maybe include something like, "Americans United for Life gives Congressman Smith and F rating, while Democrats for Life gives him an A." That way we could include the fact that there is disagreement without injecting either side's argument into the article. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dold - Eagle Forum endorsement discussion
Hi. I noticed you made a revision to the Bob Dold page regarding the Eagle Forum endorsement. Please join our discussion on the topic. Thank you. Cardinal91 (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)