User talk:Heystak

LPO
Hi Heystak,

Please take a look at the Wikipedia policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. Your recent repeated edits to Libertarian Party of Oregon, while surely well-intentioned, are not acceptable, because they deal with politicized issues, but are not cited to reliable sources. If you'd like any help adding the material in a more encyclopedic tone and format, or finding sources, let me know, and I'll do what I can. -Pete (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to keep a more open mind about it, and will read it more closely. But ultimately it's not my call, but "everyone's," based on policies like those I linked. You will find that points that are even remotely controversial, and are cited only to blogs and not to news outlets with discernible editorial structures, tend to get deleted by lots of people, especially here in Oregon where we have a pretty active editing community. I have no opinion on whether the article should be "positive" or "negative," only that the claims it makes should be well-sourced.
 * However, I will admit that I was hasty, and will take a closer look, watch the videos you posted thoroughly, etc. -Pete (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometime this afternoon or evening I will revise my original edits. While I want it to be neutral, I cannot eliminate all of the negative context other than trying to reword it. These things are what they are. I was simply trying to convey the circumstances surrounding the LPO's transition over the last few years, most of which had to do with their Executive Director. As someone involved with the party, in good conscience I feel that not providing readers with this information slights them. The information was not intended to influence anyone's opinion of the LPO or their former ED, but to convey negative information in such a way that facilitates total understanding. Sugar-coating won't help. I will concede the blog references and the acrimonious tone, but aside from that it appears everything else is credible and neutral, even if one considers it to be negative. Heystak (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I read through your edits more closely, and watched about 45 minutes of the Google video. I also did a Google News search on "Libertarian Party of Oregon," which came up with essentially no coverage of this issue beyond what is already cited in the article. My strong impression is that this issue should not be covered in detail in the Wikipedia article.
 * A bit of summary information may be appropriate, such as noting that one faction produced a video, or that the case is in the appeals process. I think that's about all that's appropriate to this article. Keep in mind that the article is intended to be an overview of the party as a whole; noteworthy incidents throughout the party's history should be included, with no special emphasis on recent events. If the news media is not covering it, there's not much Wikipedia can add.
 * If you're not aware of WikiNews, you might want to check that out -- it may be a more appropriate venue for the story you're trying to tell. This might be of interest, too.
 * We can try to draw more people into the discussion, too, if you like. Request for comment is the formal way of doing that, or we could just ask a few editors who have shown an interest in Oregon politics. -Pete (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)