User talk:Diogenean

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Bill Bradbury appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. tedder (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bradbury edits
As mentioned by the editor above, your edits to the Bill Bradbury article appear to be promoting a particular point of view to put Mr. Bradbury in a favorable light. These edits do not match with the mission of Wikipedia, which is to create an encyclopedia. A couple of specific examples:
 * You deleted the information about Bradbury's loss to Smith in the Senate race to remove any indication that Bradbury lost, replacing it with a vague suggestion that because the Iraq War and the Patriot Act were popular, well...you know.
 * You added a lengthy section, without citations, about how Bradbury, apparently singlehandedly, implemented the vote by mail system.
 * You added Bradbury's complete platform, again without citation, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright rules and certainly with disregard for the Soapbox policy. A good encyclopedia article could certainly include a description of his core beliefs, but a straight bulleted list of his point-by-point platform is not encyclopedic and, as noted before, what you have is not at all cited.

With regard to your comment that the article should be more like Kitzhaber's and other politicians in terms of scope--I don't think I've seen platforms listed on his page, or other politicians (which is not to say it doesn't exist, but it doesn't make it right either). With regard to your comment about size and structure of other articles, I really hope you will read the policies more carefully and do help improve the article to get it further toward that point. So far, you have appeared only to try to force your changes into the article. I hope I have explained why your edits are regarded with suspicion.

Oh, and please especially be aware of the three-revert rule. If you revert back to the edits you are trying to promote, they will be removed immediately and you are likely to be blocked. I suggest you use the talk page to discuss changes before making them to the article itself. --Esprqii (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, it was you who changed the initial page and made it shorter--deleting half of Bill Bradbury's acomplishmemnts as a legislator and as Secretary of State. You will have to prove that that information is not relevent in the discussion page, otherwise I will continue to revert the page to its origional status.

Please stop tempering with information right before an election.

Sincerely, Diogenean
 * It wasn't me who gutted the article, but I support removing uncited information from any article, especially one of a living person. I'm glad to see that you are adding back information with citations.


 * I think you need several more citations, preferably online citations, that more strongly support your assertions that Bradbury was a strong leader for Vote by Mail and the implementation of ORESTAR. The Elections in Oregon article might also be of interest to you, and it contains no language about Bradbury's role. I'm not saying he doesn't have a role--just saying it needs to be cited. --Esprqii (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

discussion pointers
Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. Basically, the burden is on adding material to be well-sourced and from a neutral point of view. This content is not, and adding it now certainly makes the conflict of interest very suspect. tedder (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been censored until after the election.

tedder (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous; "tedder" and "Esprqii" are clearly biased against Bill Bradbury, have accused me of sock-puppeting from another IP address, have blocked access to Bradbury's site, and have construed every section they can to paint Bill in a less favorable light. For instance: Kitzhaber's page has four paragraph summary, and they won't let Bill's be anything more than one paragraph. I don't see them having the same concern over neutrality regarding Kitzhaber's page.