User talk:ChiefSohcahtoa

Please don't remove relevant, sourced information as you have done at Matthew J. Amorello and add biased information. Although it's good to always cite your sources, marketing brochures that seemingly were written and edited under the eye of Amorello himself doesn't qualify as a reputable source. This is not to say that Amorello did or did not achieve these milestones but that in the grand scheme of things, they are not relevant to why Amorello was such a newsworthy figure. Discuss on the talk page if there are changes you would like to make on the article. Thanks. Cornerstone79 (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent comments you made on my talk page. Here are a few follow-up thoughts I had to the comments that you made.

First, I apologize if you are in fact not Alpha Centauri. Like I said on Matthew J. Amorello talk page, I only suspected you were Alpha Centauri because of two patterns of behavior that both of you shared: (1) you both errantly use the "minor edit" tag for major edits to the content of the article and (2) you use the same exact edits and wording (the only single difference seems to be the cite to the marketing brochure) as Alpha Centauri.

This leads me to discuss the more important issues at hand. The fact that you're using a "minor edit" tag is at the very least improper, and at the very worst, a blatant attempt to disguise major, potentially controversial, edits to a page so that others may not notice it. If you are to continue to make significant content edits to a page, we all ask that you use the "minor edit" tag properly. If you need guidance on how to use the minor edit tag, please see the page at Help:Minor_edit. I think the first two sentences of this article clearly supports my cause: "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: type corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

Secondly, I do not have a personal vendetta against Mr. Amorello, although I can see how you might think so. I think the fact that multiple, established editors and Wikipedia administrators have all agreed with the edits to the Matthew J. Amorello page and actions against Alpha Centauri speak to that fact. Furthermore, the fact you bring up issues regarding this article's content on my talk page instead of the discussion page for Matthew J. Amorello makes me actually believe that you are trying to make things personal. I would respectfully suggest that we avoid that route and continue all discussion regarding his page on his designated talk page.

Thirdly, as far as the content of the article is concerned, we as editors are not trying to "blame" Mr. Amorello. We are only saying that many others have blamed him for the perceived shortcomings of the Big Dig project. This was properly cited. Life I've said before, we need to keep in mind exactly why Mr. Amorello has a wikipedia entry to begin with. We are not including every public administrator with descriptions of the milestones they were supposed to do anyways. Mr. Amorello was in the news and became well-known for his role in Big Dig and the subsequent aftermath.

Finally, I did some research regarding the reference you added. The fact that this is being published by a construction organization leads me to believe that this is a biased source. We should only be including references from established news organizations and unbiased, academic sources, amongst others. Including a reference that is supported by the Tocci Building Companies, E. J. Wells Insurance Agency, Columbia Construction Company, Nauset Construction, S&F Concrete Contractors Inc., et. al. in an article that discusses the failures of a construction project...is HIGHLY suspect. I hope you can see just how absurd it is using a brochure created by those supporting the construction industry for an article that discusses a massive failure in the construction space.

I look forward to furthering discussing potential issues and changes to the Mathew J. Amorello page on his respective talk page. Thanks. Cornerstone79 (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)