User talk:DiddyKong9434

Welcome!
Hello, DiddyKong9434, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Hello, I'm Melcous. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Paul Calandra seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Melcous. I think my contributions added needed balance to what is currently a pretty ideologically tilted and inappropriate article about Mr. Calandra. Many of the referenced articles currently on his page are irrelevant, but, regardless, I included them in my additions and added substantive elements about his political positions on contemporary issues such as: the war against ISIS; the abuse of drug permits in his local riding and their current  court challenges; Canadian support to Ukraine, including satellite imagery which he was responsible for; and, additional material on legislation which is clearly more relevant to a politicians' page than what is currently posted. Additionally, I corrected mis-information. For example, I clearly sourced that this was a voluntary payment: "In 2012 Calandra was forced to repay $5,000 that his riding association...". The change was reverted and now there is more inaccurate and discriminatory information on the page. Additionally, the section about Critch is completely inaccurate. Critch's actions were inappropriate and he was reprimanded by the CBC. Why was this removed? Paul Calandra's page currently contains a lot of bias and does not serve Wikipedia readers well. Please take the time to cross reference the material I added with the sources before making changes, as I believe reversing these changes entirely was a mistake. I am happy to discuss further if you require more information.
 * Thanks for your message, but unfortunately the fact that you used multiple accounts to make the same changes against wikipedia policy on sock puppets and kept adding the same changes after being reverted by a number of different editors rather than discussing your concerns on the article's talk page seems to have led to you being blocked. If I get a chance in the future to have a look deeper into some of the sources I may try, but at this point that won't happen in a hurry. It's a shame that you could not have put a constructive comment like this on the talk page rather than persistently reverting and we may have been able to get somewhere. Melcous (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Melcous, since when is the status quo the impetus of rationale decision making? You frozen an article during an election on the assumption that the original content, which is malicious, slanderous by virtue of misinformation, and misleading to the electorate, is more legitimate without having done any research. In effect, what you have done is reversed changes not on substance, which is at the heart of Wikipedia, but because more users preferred the original misinformation (which was largely included in the rewrite and corrected with sources where necessary) to the new article. Could you please review the article, as it an election period and what has been posted is malicious and unbalanced. Also, as far as I am aware there were only two account working on this project - me and a colleague in the same home. Thanks.