User talk:Danprice19

Dave Albo
FYI, I've reverted or modified most of your citations for Dave Albo's page because they either a) don't actually support the claims made or b) are not from valid sources. For instance, you just added a link to a newsletter from Ken Plum to support the claim that Plum has been criticized for his support for the abuser bills, but nowhere in his newsletter did he state or imply that. Given that Dave Albo is following the entry about him closely, and given that he's shown a predilection towards wiping out anything that he doesn't like, I think it's particularly important that everything in this entry be well-documented using reliable, factual sources of information. --WaldoJ (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

POV
Please refrain from adding assertions and bias into articles. This is an encyclopedia, not talk radio. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Dan, I noticed that your AfD on the Centrist Party isn't signed by you. Also, I don't think the nominator usually votes. I did find your argument quite convincing. Perhaps you could add it to the nomination itself? You are welcome to respond and discuss the nominations with other editors (it could also be left as a response to my "vote". I'm not sure if the rule on nominees not "voting" is hard and fast, but I think it's kind of discouraged. Generally if you've nominated an article it's pretty clear you think it should be deleted. But as long as you sign the nomination you can do what you want, I'm just letting you know.  Take care, Happy New Year! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Wikipedia takes a lot of getting used to in my opinion. Let me know if I can be of any help. While your argument is strong, I try to ask myself is the encyclopedia better or worse for including this information? It seems to me that political parties, however small, that recieved substantial coverage are notable. This is certainly a marginal case, and I could see it merged to a "list of" article. Consider this: Someone decides to start a Centrist party, they want to look up information, low and behold they find out there actually was one (or if the article was deleted, they don't). Or someone is just interested by the idea of a "centrist party" and finds that someone tried to start a political party along those lines. I think the information is useful at some level, and as it was covered by the media it has some notability and can be verified. But again, the case you made is strong. We'll see what happens. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While I stand by my argument, I can absolutely go along with removing this stand-alone entry and merging it to a "list of" article. That way if they do demonstrate notability in 2010 as they purport, then they can achieve an actual entry. If this works for you, I imagine the nomination for deletion of this particular entry would still have to stand, but I am willing to go along with your suggestion. What is the protocol for offering this alternative? Thanks again and happy new year. danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a merge to this article Political parties in the United States? If it seems like a good idea, I'll do it and you can see how it works. And as a side note, even when there is nothing to merge, if you redirect it (a merge with no content added) at least the history of the original article is preserved which can be kind of useful as a record. This also can avoid the whole AfD process altogether unless there are objections. And then there is discussion that can still avoid AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that particular list is appropriate. Unless I'm missing something, they focus on the major parties, as well as Greens, LP and CP. If I am wrong, or merely missed the appropriate place, then by all means, I have no objection to your idea. I'll go with your judgment on this compromise. My main issue, again, is that this entry is not notable per the reasons already mentioned. I also suggest that it is made clear that the Centrist Party is merely an "attempt" but it has never been verified to have a membership base of more than 1 person.danprice19 (talk) 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry. This is the article: List of political parties in the United States. Very confusing names. The only difference is that one adds the words "list of". Although I notice it's just a list of, so I'm still not sure. It seems like some information on the party would be good to include, and it can't really be merged there. By the way if you put something on your userpage, your signature won't show up as a red link. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That list wouldn't be appropriate as I share your concern about the lack of descriptions. I looked for an entry or list that had quick one-line descriptions of all political parties, but did not see one. That might be a good entry to create when I find some time. Hate to be difficult, but I still believe a page devoted to the Centrist Party is not justifed based on my stated reasons. It also doesn't seem proper to list the name of it on a merged page without a link or brief statement saying this was an attempt by seemingly one man in 2006 to start this group. But again, it all comes back to the argument that this is not a notable party since it's populated by one man. Even the few articles limited to a few months in 2006 fail to mention another member but instead view it as an attempt. I know I sound like a broken record, but am trying to think of a compromise since the attempt itself for a Centrist party is interesting. But again-again, they haven't done anything since mid 2006 and their founder has acknowledged they won't do anything until 2010. I have no problem with a proper compromise since you do have a valid point, but as it stands, I am still leaning toward deletion. Danprice19 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Dan, I think you may have missed the step where you actually list the AfD. So it's showing up on the article, but isn't on the appropriate day's log. I've listed at wp:ANI to get some help fixing it. I'm not sure on the appropriate remedy or if I can add it to today's log. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I listed it. It's in today's (Jan. 2) wp: AfD group. The instructions for AfDs are a little confusing, but the steps are at the bottom of the template. You substitute it. Then you have to follow the next few steps. No worries, hopefully my "fix" won't cause all of Wikipedia to crash and burn... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike Lebowitz
Hi. I have turned the version with a lower-case "L" into a redirect to the main article, so that we don't have two versions lying around. If you find you have got an article title wrong, you can change it by clicking the "Move" tab at the top and entering a new title. That leaves the old title as a redirect, as in this case, which is often useful; if not, e.g. if it's an improbable mistype, you can put (two curly brackets each side) at the top of the redirect page, which will get it deleted. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I really appreciate your help. Danprice19 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Constitution Party
Wow, that was quick. Is the quickness of your response to my edit evidence that you already knew that the referenced article didn't say what you said that it said? It didn't seem like you even had time to go back and review the article text in that short amount of time, to see if your previous summation of it was incorrect. --Yosemite1967 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No conspiracy theories on my end. I've been meaning to eliminate the "right wing" talk as you are correct, it is a POV. I thought it best to merely cite the platform. Danprice19 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized that I edited your user page, instead of your talk page. Sorry about that. OK, I assumed, by your quick response, that you were the one who put in the reference to the Baldwin article in the first place (with the mischaracterizing summary about it). If my assumption was faulty, I apologize. --Yosemite1967 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I got it vark... Thanks though.Danprice19 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Yosemite1967. I think it should be ok now. I imagine you can't argue too much with the platform being cited and quoted.Danprice19 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, when I said "you can't argue", it wasn't a personal attack.. I meant one can't, or at least shouldn't be able to argue with facts direct from the party.Danprice19 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I get the spirit of your "you can't argue" comment. I, at first, was a little taken aback by that statement, but now I feel the gist of what you meant. Thanks for clarifying, and I totally agree--there is no better evidence for a party's stand than that party's official stand. :^) However, I'm wondering whether those last two sentences of the opening paragraph wouldn't be more fitting elsewhere in the article.  For example, the divine acknowledgements in their platform would probably fit better in the Platform section.  Where it sits now, its location gives it a feeling of someone with a POV problem trying to get in their licks at the top of the article. --Yosemite1967 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you. But in this party's case, much of their overarching focus does come from the divinity aspect. It's not a subtle element with them, but is in fact dominate in their platform. I added this "and seeks to secure "our unalienable rights given us by our Creator" as a means to show an unbiased statement. But my point is that there is nothing wrong with viewing Jesus in the manner that they do, but their platform and therefore entire party is guided by this aspect as cited by the platform. Danprice19 (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what makes it seem out-of-balance to me is the fact that this is the only principle of theirs mentioned in the opening paragraph. With the richness of the content that is covered in their on-line literature (and, by richness, I'm not saying that I agree {or disagree} with it), summing it all up by merely mentioning one of the principles covered in their literature isn't fair. On another note, I need to ask you about the last sentence... --Yosemite1967 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just came across this Wikipedia rule about undue weight while researching some other things. It says what I'm trying to say here better than I can, and it applies to both my thoughts above and those below. --Yosemite1967 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as the religious aspect, I think it is proper to be at the top because of how much significance the party places on this aspect. It is not undue weight because this element is their fundamental belief as stated in their platform preamble. Basically, it is their reason to be. As for the racist comments, they come from the comment section. But on further review, you are correct and it probably should be placed lower in the article or removed. Danprice19 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the party places great significance on that thought. However, they place great significance on other things which aren't mentioned in the opening paragraph. One example is the United States Constitution, though they're named after it! --(Yosemite1967 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

What about this instead? It's from their writeup on the main page of their site: The Constitution Party generally seeks to restore the government to its Constitutional limits and the law to its Biblical foundations. I'm going to go ahead and change it to that, as this is what the party uses in their brief synopsis and represents what they find most important to their mission, driving force, etc. I will then add the Creator and Jesus info into the platform section as it is relevant. Danprice19 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Good show, Dan. Good show. --Yosemite1967 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Racist Comments
--Yosemite1967 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the sentence about racist comments fits in the opening paragraph? Again, it just looks like POV getting in early licks.  This sentence would probably fit better in a "Controversy" section.
 * The cited Starret article does not mention criticism that the party received for racist comments, like the sentence suggests. Who was it that criticized Starret for the comments and characterized them as racist?  That's what people will be expecting when they click that citation link, because of how the sentence before the citation is worded.
 * Also, the placement of this citation (instead of a citation of someone calling Starret's comments racist) appears to be making the assumption that Starrett's comments will strike everyone who reads them as being racist. Whether Starret's comments are racist is a debatable question at this point.
 * You also might want to consider the fact that what one person, who is a member of a group, says is not necessarily the position of the entire group, or even a majority of the group, or even a minority of the group. I know that this sentence doesn't directly make such a claim, but its location in the opening paragraph of the article about the party can form an implication in the mind of the reader.

Pirate Party (United States)
Please do not remove the information again. Much of it is well-sourced (including information on its formation contained in a Wired article). In addition, the federal government does not have formal recognition criteria. In some states, voters can register as a Pirate Party member simply by filling in the appropriate line on a voter registration form. Also, I am not a Pirate Party member, nor do I have any affiliation with them, so claims of "advertising" are invalid. I discovered the Pirate party while looking at the article for Piratpartiet, and found out that there was no article for this Party. In short, please do not remove information backed up by sources that meet WP:RS. Firestorm Talk 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did keep relevant items that were sourced directly relating to this party. There is no ascertainable membership. Therefore, it is an attempt at a political party as there is nothing more notable. Danprice19 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW... There is no need to restate this group's platform per Wiki policy. Instead, I retained the general priority that was referenced. Other references apart from the Wired article relate to the European party and not US. We also don't need an entire paragraph documenting how this group failed to get enough signatures to form a recognized party. on and on...Danprice19 (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, I will accept your edits to this article as valid (at least until I can get data from a RS that has membership information). I did not see your rationale on the Talk page (where I probably should have looked first), but instead saw an attempt to remove cited information from the article, so I immediately reverted. Seeing your reasoning now, my concerns have been taken care of, and I will adhere to WP:1RR until I find verifiable membership information. Firestorm  Talk 19:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Thanks. Danprice19 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)