User talk:GoldenMean

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Dismas|(talk) 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Tom Cruise
Concerning your recent edits to the Tom Cruise article, you may want to have a look at Revert. Reverting would have made those corrections that you made a bit simpler. Thanks for your effort! Dismas|(talk) 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dick Morris
Three,

I am writing concerning your repeated removal of certain content from the 'Dick Morris' Wikipedia article.

I understand you are under the impression that the item you continue to remove is 'commentary' or part of an 'agenda'. Please understand that I did not place it in the article myself. If you had looked at edits previous to mine, you would see that the introduction of Mr. Sabato as an accurate predictor of elections for the sake of coherence already existed in the article for quite some time. The change I made was in response to a 'citation needed' tag placed next to that fact. I inserted two citations for the fact. All the rest of my edits were attempts to rearrange the sentence for the sake of clarity, not to change the substance of the existing sentence.

Perhaps the article would be better off without the sentences on Mr. Morris's accuracy or lack therof altogether. However, it would seem clear that your repeated attempts to remove this fact are not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and certainly do not reflect well on your claim to be anti-agenda. I would appreciate a full response to this message prior to any attempt to delete or alter any further content from that article.

Thank you. --GoldenMean 19:46, 07 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi GoldenMean, My take on it, just one little editor, is that the description before Mr. Sabato's name is unneccessary, unsourced, commentary, extraneous, original research, take your pick. Readers can go to Mr. Sabato's articvle and decide for themselves on how to describe this gentleman. It seems that there is alot of this type of extraneous editorializing description of events, places and people. My response would be what is the point/agenda of continually readding that descritive word before that man's name? Anyways, I will probably revert it a few more times, take it to talk and then seek consensus. About 2/3s of the articles I edit, I have absolutely no horse in the race or prior interest in the article, just trying to copy edit and maintain wp:mos and wp:npov. Thanks and cheers! --Tom 12:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom,

I reluctantly accept your deletion of the complete subsection, but, for the record, you are simply mistaken about it being "unsourced" or "original research". As is apparent from a quick reading of the now deleted section, there were in fact two good sources--so neither "unsourced" or "original research" are accurate descriptions of the smaller portion you previously insisted on removing again and again.

In addition, from a quick examination of the two sources provided, one can see that Mr. Sabato's accuracy is in fact good (by any definition of the word), and furthermore, that he is quite noteworthy for this accuracy. Available, reliable sources unambiguously demonstrate that his accuracy and expertise are well-documented facts--not "commentary".

The reason I felt your removal of the preexisting description of Mr. Sabato as an "accurate" political prognosticator was detrimental is simply that with that introduction removed, some people would not know who Mr. Sabato was, or why they should give any consideration to his thoughts on matters of political prediction. Being that his accuracy in this regard is quite well-established, it would be difficult to argue that including the word "accurate" does anything other than provide the most basic context for his quote.

Concerning your deletion of the entire section, I would just say that I think that is a better solution than deleting only the section providing basic context for Mr. Sabato's statement. I personally feel it would have been--and always is--preferable to seek consensus, and rework content into a more appropriate place in the article rather than to delete it outright.

Should you have a disagreement with someone on such a matter in the future, I'm sure they would appreciate it if you would work with them to address the substance of your disagreement rather than starting an edit war, or accusing them of having an "agenda". We all have biases, even if we are unaware of them. Substantive discussion and reasoned compromise seem to produce increasingly richer and accurate articles whereas edit wars and ad hominem arguments seem to lead to article gridlock and corrosion. I hope you agree.

Thanks,

GoldenMean 03:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)GoldenMean
 * Hi GoldenMean, Yeah, taking stuff to talk page and trying to seek consensus is always a good deal. I didn't think my edits were that big a deal and I do not want to edit war. Anyways, no big deal and thanks for your response. I will watch the article and try to use the talk page more. Cheers! --Tom 12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

TimeStyle
These are the mannerisms used by Time Magazine when Luce had charge of it personally; so called because one of them was compounding words arbitrarily. Another was always using apposition to identify people, although true TimeStyle would more like  "and Biographer Chernow quipped".

Please don't use "notable"; read WP:PEACOCK instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Newburgh
Please don't remove sourced assertions without asking or checking the sources; it could be misconstrued. As it happens, Chernow discusses Hamilton's connection with the Newburgh conspiracy on pp 176-180, although, as ever, he argues that whatever Hamilton may have done, he was acting for the best possible motives.

On another note; please be much more careful in using "Anti-Federalist"; it has a specific meaning, and neither Madison nor Freneau qualify. (They were both anti-Federalist, but that's a different thing.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That you don't believe a sourced assertion is what discussion is for. Go read Adair and Harvey; on Newburgh, read American Dictionary of National Biography. Please note that I did not say he was at Newburgh; I said what Forrest McDonald says on ANB, that he supported them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See Democratic Republicans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of it. The name for the Democratic Republicans is kind of a free-for-all early on. If you want to talk any more about that, though, please start a new section. Thanks, though. GoldenMean 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I reported you for reverting sourced material, which you did, and continue to do. You have not yet violated 3RR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What good does it do to substantiate? The Newburgh matter was cited to ANB, and you removed it anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V; and find a reliable secondary source that controverts what I have written, or retract. I don't see either, and that is why I have written as I have. If you do, I shall include it; that's the Wiki method.

Your arguments have been:
 * A Founding Father can't possibly have done such a thing. Utter nonsense; the officers at Newburgh were Founding Fathers as much as Hamilton; if you actually know any American history, other examples will occur to you, including the senior officer who was in the pay of the Americans, the British, the French and the Spanish.
 * WP:IDONTKNOWIT. So what? Once I didn't know it either; that's one reason these things are worth including: our readers don't know them, and they are verifiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazette of the United States
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Gazette of the United States, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: :. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 05:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Renaming an article requires moving the page so as to not loose contribution history; something copy-and-paste does (GFDL requires that edition history be preserved). The page has been reverted, then moved, to fix the error.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)