User talk:FaulknerAbsalom

Sources on 'Chris Myers (New Jersey)' are from sources such a liberal blogs (Blue Jersey) or sources taken out of context. There is no reason to discuss the fundraiser with President Bush unless you are listing for OBJECTIVE purposes the fundraisers BOTH candidates have (see neutrality policy)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

John Adler
Please don't come to my user page just to give me grief on a small thing such as this. If you look at my contributions, you will see a history of quick, easily judged edits read as vandalism. I apologize, I thought that's what that was. I am not a vandal, believe me. I would never intentionally bruse the honor of a successful organization. 71.176.127.17 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For an agreement to be reached on the recent edit wars, I would argue there must be a semi-reasonable portrayal of facts. Adler's page has facts based on personal funds, voting records, etc. The Myers page has mostly liberal blogs as sources. How is this fair? I agree that this edit war must stop on both sides, but the articles need to be fair... DentyneIce3 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC) DentyneIce3

Chris Myers
You reverted my cleanup of the article which I completed this morning, saying that it was vandalism for removing and changing some parts of the article. First of all, my edit was far from vandalism. When I read this article, I was struck by the strong pro-Myers bias in many parts (it reads like a résumé in many parts) and an anti-Myers bias in other parts. Beyond that, there are sections where it is too wordy and contains information or text quoted from third-party websites where it could just as easily be found by clicking on the cited websites rather than re-printing it in the article. So, I decided to try and remove all bias and cut down on the wordiness of the article -- in general, make it a little more concise and a lot more encyclopedic. Your reversion does not seem fair and my edit certainly does not constitute vandalism (I am familiar with Wikipedia policy, and just because something is cited does not mean that it is necessary to the article). Please explain yourself. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had no malicious intent to vandalize this article when I edited it, but I will gladly explain myself. My point is that even if the information is cited, even if it is relevant to the subject, it still may not be necessary for inclusion. In many cases within this article, there are parts where the information is excessive and not necessary. I take particular issue with the quotes from newspaper editorials in which they detail why the newspaper supports the candidate being endorsed.  We don't absolutely need to quote that much in the article.  If anything it should be a couple of words quoted if necessary, or better yet a general summary like the one I provided. But simply saying that these newspapers endorsed Adler and these endorsed Myers, with links to the editorials as references (where the reader could go if they wanted to find out why the newspaper supported that candidate) would suffice.
 * But I will be more than happy to explain every single change that I made. Just ask me about any specific part and I will justify my changes. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, if you won't respond to my requests for discussion then how can you justify a blanket reversion of everything? To paraphrase Barack Obama, we need to take a scalpel, not a hatchet. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FaulknerAbsalom, I am an unbiased observer here. I did not remove portions of the article because they were not to my liking, I removed them either because they were biased or because they were too wordy or did not seem necessary.  But perhaps I did cut too much out, and too quickly. So I will address the three concerns you mentioned:
 * 1) His refusal to take a position on SCHIP the first time seems like overkill since his position on the program is mentioned later in that same paragraph. Therefore, I removed it.
 * 2) His fundraiser with Bush - not sure why you mentioned this, because I did not remove this information in my revision.
 * 3) Jamestown Associates - I removed this paragraph because it does not seem to have any relevance or importance whatsoever to the campaign. It happened very early on and as far as I can tell did not have too great of an effect on the way people view Myers. Please explain why the Jamestown Associates issue is so relevant to the article.
 * Anyway, I will begin to make smaller edits in order to gradually improve the article. There are places where my changes were very necessary and did not constitute removal of cited information, which is why I was somewhat frustrated with your blanket reversion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm glad we agree about the newspaper endorsements. The length of the Asbury Park Press endorsement was a mistake on my part; they should all be the same length. As for polling, I agree with you that my original changes were too drastic. While the polling section is a veritable morass of words which definitely needs to be made less wordy, I agree that information about polling over the course of the campaign should remain. But I think it's important to include the latest poll data, hence what I added in my edit of the article. I think it's a good idea to move the Jamestown material to the "Controversies" section, since it doesn't really merit its own paragraph in the "Primary" section in my opinion. I am still confused about your repeated mention of my removal of the fact that Bush haeld a fundraiser with Myers since that is not true; I left that information in. If you are referring to the unsourced opinion that "It has been suggested that Bush's unpopularity could hurt Myers' chances with independent voters," a source is needed. And finally, I really thought that the biographical portions of the article had a certain pro-Myers bias, hence my changes there. Are there any other problems which you would like to discuss?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Stop at Willoughby (talk • contribs) 04:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made a series of changes to the article where I deemed it appropriate while leaving much of what was there before and taking into account all of your opinions. Please let me know if you take issue with anything. Also, the polling section (and maybe the positions on issues section) needs some work still. But thank you for the civil discussion so far. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, especially since with the election tomorrow excessive information about polling will really be overkill. Perhaps it should just be a summary of the trends in the polls over time, with polls from different times during the campaign as references.  A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm glad we agree about the newspaper endorsements. The length of the Asbury Park Press endorsement was a mistake on my part; they should all be the same length. As for polling, I agree with you that my original changes were too drastic. While the polling section is a veritable morass of words which definitely needs to be made less wordy, I agree that information about polling over the course of the campaign should remain. But I think it's important to include the latest poll data, hence what I added in my edit of the article. I think it's a good idea to move the Jamestown material to the "Controversies" section, since it doesn't really merit its own paragraph in the "Primary" section in my opinion. I am still confused about your repeated mention of my removal of the fact that Bush haeld a fundraiser with Myers since that is not true; I left that information in. If you are referring to the unsourced opinion that "It has been suggested that Bush's unpopularity could hurt Myers' chances with independent voters," a source is needed. And finally, I really thought that the biographical portions of the article had a certain pro-Myers bias, hence my changes there. Are there any other problems which you would like to discuss?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Stop at Willoughby (talk • contribs) 04:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made a series of changes to the article where I deemed it appropriate while leaving much of what was there before and taking into account all of your opinions. Please let me know if you take issue with anything. Also, the polling section (and maybe the positions on issues section) needs some work still. But thank you for the civil discussion so far. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, especially since with the election tomorrow excessive information about polling will really be overkill. Perhaps it should just be a summary of the trends in the polls over time, with polls from different times during the campaign as references.  A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)