User talk:Hcobb/Archives/2015/May

Dossier
Not sure if you are aware of this, but there is a growing dossier of your edits at User:CFredkin with accusations of mis-characterization of sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that I believe that some of the points made by CFredkin may be accurate. We need to be careful not to editorialize unnecessarily, and always stay close to the sources -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard Post
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The ANI issue
First, a process comment. I think was premature to post to ANI about your edits. While I see problems with your edits, ANI is a place to discuss editor conduct, and, while I haven't read all of the links, I haven't seen an allegation that you are contesting corrections to your edits. As I pointed out on the ANI thread, the content issues should be handled on the article talk pages, and if content disputes cannot be resolved there, they should be brought to a content noticeboard, such as BLP. If your conduct becomes an issue, then ANI might make sense, although teven there, it is desirable to start at a user's talk page first.

Now a content comment. Your edit to Political Positions of Jeb Bush could be AGFd as a simple misreading. After all, the word blunder is in the source, and the general point of the discussion was that Jeb was identifying areas where his opinion wasn't largely different from GW Bush. However, it is quite troubling that you seem to stand by the edit, even after the problems have been identified. If you still think your edit was valid, I have to wonder if you have the ability to be an unbiased editor. I'll be happy to discuss this edit further (on the article talk page) if you think I've missed something.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Walker
I see that your edit to Scott Walker was reverted. I do not see any further attempts by you to revert it back (good sign), but I am curious to know whether you now see what was wrong with your edit? I am trying to figure out if you are simply making many mistakes, or if you do not understand how to read sources?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Rand Paul
I'd like to hear your justification for this edit. --Neil N  talk to me 17:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)