User talk:Boeye34

Regarding Van Taylor
I've reviewed the article history and talk page as you requested, and I can see that there are clear problems with edit warring and conflict of views among some editors. However, properly speaking these edits shouldn't be described as "vandalism"; under WP:VAND, vandalism consists only of deliberate damage to the encyclopedia. Instead, the relevant policy is WP:NPOV; all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which does not seem to be happening in the case of the Taylor article. As you say, a lot of the editors involved with the article seem to be supporters of Taylor's opponent. I would make several suggestions on what can be done: A couple of points for you as well: remember to sign your posts on talkpages using four tildes ( ~ ). Also, I saw that you attempted to file a request for mediation earlier on this issue; at present, this wasn't the correct action, hence why the request was closed early and deleted. This issue hasn't yet escalated to a level where mediation would be needed. You acted correctly in asking for outside advice, however, and I hope my advice is helpful. :) Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You make the point (on the article talkpage) that many of the references given are from biased sources and a pro-Edwards perspective. This is true; I would suggest that, rather than trying to have these sources removed, you simply expand the article (it's too short anyway, at present) and add some more neutral sources to back up your edits. Remember to source everything you write; read WP:ATT and WP:RS for more information on using sources in Wikipedia.
 * At the moment, Taylor's military record seems to be covered adequately in the article; it describes his combat mission participation and his decorations while serving in the Marine Corps. This information is sourced to reliable sources, so it would be improper for Bulawdude or anyone else to remove the information without giving a good reason, which should be explained on the talkpage. If this happens, feel free to revert, but ensure that you don't violate WP:3RR (which means you can't revert any page more than 3 times in 24 hours), and do explain your changes to other editors on the talkpage.
 * According to the talkpage, the reason Taylor is not pictured in uniform is because he is primarily notable for political rather than military activity; as such, some users didn't consider it appropriate to picture him in uniform.
 * One thing I noticed: I'm not sure why the lead section emphasises the fact that Chet Edwards is a graduate of Texas A&M. (Possibly because all the users editing the page seem to be A&M graduates as well...) This information doesn't seem important enough to go in the lead section of the Van Taylor article, as it has nothing to do with Taylor himself. So you're right that the article seems to be suffering from a certain degree of pro-Edwards bias.