User talk:Mike Doughney/Archive/Nov-2008

UAA Report
I've declined (and removed) the UAA report you made for User:ABCNews EH. I've noted my reason a couple of hours ago. If you wish to continue pursuing this matter, I'd recommend WP:RFCN as that is a more appropriate venue for extended discussion anyways.

Policy and process aside, I'll note again my opinion on the issue. The user clearly isn't causing any harm, and is in fact, improving content by adding encyclopedic references to our articles. Of course this conflict of interest guideline doesn't explicitly prohibit editing subjects that you are related to, but it does caution editors doing so to take extra care as to not violate other policies. I strongly feel that the user is not disrupting the project in the least. I think it is unfortunate that we are wanting to block a user, who is acting as a benefit to some articles by adding references, simply because of WP:U.

This user is trying to do all the right things - clearly stating her interests with the organization that she is affiliated with, and she even contacted the foundation ahead of time. I think we should try to assume a bit more good faith in this situation and really evaluate what the user is doing, before quickly calling for blocks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding in "(Mormon)" to the correction I did on the Proposition 8 page, I must have just blanked on that! - ђαίгснгм   таιќ   05:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You edit without even trying to discuss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MonaVie

prop 8
lets see was a vote taken? why yes one was so we know how most of California feels then don't we? --Mrmcuker (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assessment is a blatant POV comment inappropriate for the article. Stop. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, who said most people even voted? We only know how most of the voters felt.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 07:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008)
Hello. Please remember the three-revert rule when editing the California Proposition 8 (2008) article. If the edit war continues, I may be forced to protect the article from editing or take other administrative action. If you have a disagreement with other editors regarding this article's content, please consider taking it to the talk page instead. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've proposed full protection for the California Proposition 8 (2008) article. Editors have been keeping this article on a relatively even keel for weeks, but hit-and-run POV pushers instantly wreck that equilibrium. Protect it for now. I suppose then that the series of warnings on WP:WARN labeled "Not adhering to neutral point of view" is in practice ineffective? Mike Doughney (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Your revert was wrong
There was no discussion and hence no consensus on the article section I edited PLUS I backed up my edits with extensive quotations and justification. You did not give any rebuttal at all. Before you revert you should at least have an argument to the contrary, reasonable in weight to support the reversal. --Blue Tie (talk)

Please note that reverting without reviewing the rationale does not constitute "discussion." The language I am attempting to edit has not been clearly discussed on the talk page previuously and so there should be no presumption of consensus. Your apparent willingness to start an edit war to Retain OR without any discussion is indicative of bad faith editing and could result in a block against you. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008)
Wow, you seem very sensitive about the article. My apologies. I know it is frowned upon to post personal comments. I was just shocked that such a proposal existed and never intended to start a discussion board... With that said, you didn't have to remove the comment, but w/e. Oran e  (talk)  06:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to maintain neutrality in the article on Proposition 8, but the article contains a great deal of partiality. You showed your partiality by removing my edits, which were simply quotations from the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage. That's why I put quotation marks around the copy. By deleting that information, you disinformed Wikipedia readers. User:wvogeler —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Your actual edit does not in any way match your characterization of it, and without any possible justification you removed background material and citations, concluding with a blatantly biased point-of-view assessment of a future event. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, you apparently did not read the summary of my edits. I explained that my edits removed the inaccurate and biased legal history in the article and replaced it with the correct legal history as quoted by the state Supreme Court. I quoted the court verbatim, so your criticism of my edits is misdirected. You should read the decision, which I cited in my edits. The quotations are 100% accurate. If you choose not to restore my edits, you will perpetuate an inaccurate account of California's legal history on marriage and compromise the value of Wikipedia articles as truthful and factual. User:wvogeler —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC).


 * "Accuracy" of the quotations is not the issue. The narrative of the history, which you are deleting, with which you are apparently the sole editor to take offense, is the issue. Please discuss the deletions you are proposing on the talk page before attempting to make further edits. Deletion of material without discussion or explanation (note that I said "explanation," where I would expect to see a point by point summary, understandable to other editors, of how the current version is a "biased and inaccurate recitation," and not a simple repetition of your unsupported assertion that the current version reflects bias and must be deleted) may result in you being blocked. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, please don't hack out other peoples changes and make unanimous decisions thinking your opinion is correct. I support this proposition and wanted people to read the actual text for the proposition so they can make there own opinion. This is not outlined verbatim in the article and I feel it is important for people to read. If not it would have been more appropriate to put this in the discussion section or to consult me directly. As per the custom here it is also appropriate to put your reason and complaint on my talk page so I don't have to dig through pages of logs. What is supposed to be meant by calling someone a "muddy boots of the victory marchers"? Dmckeehan (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing Discussions on Talk Page
Please refrain from removing relevant discussions from the talk page under the pretense of reverting "vandalism." I neither edited nor altered any other individual's contributions; I merely added a pararaph, arguing my case for why the sentence should be included, followed by two brief clarifications of spurious comments made by the preceding poster regarding my character/motives. I neither edited nor vandalised their post. I understand that your opinion may differ from my own re: the structure of the prop. 8 article, but that is no excuse for needlessly silencing dissenting voices.Awakeandalive1 (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit history shows about 20k bytes of the talk page were removed and sections were rearranged by your edit when you added the paragraph. The revert of that edit was performed by another user. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunate, but was not the result of any action on my part. It may have been a bot or someone hijacking my account? Again, I did nothing to vandalize or remove content from the page.Awakeandalive1 (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

regarding monavie
The article on Coca-Cola includes informations on its competition (namely Pepsi) and there hasn't been any tirant to forbid these informations ex cathedra. I haven't mentioned any specific product though. I only extended an already present thought on "more cost-effective conventional antioxidant-rich foods, such as blueberries". I don't see a reason why blueberries deserve to be mentioned but blackcurrants or bilberries don't(!). I gave more arguments on why new informations should be included in a discussion panel. If you had bothered to reply it instead of making hints and threatening, this discussion wouldn't have got "personal" in the first place. Seems like you have fun in overusing power.

Why do you consider criticism of the CNN exit poll in prop 8 to be original research?
Did you read the edits I made? What do you object to specifically? Would it be better to remove the part on the demographics completely since it is entirely based on the CNN exit poll which does not provide basic information on the locations of it interviews? Why is that exit poll sacred? I would be content with removing it completely. Cydelin (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is original research and is a synthesis of published material that promotes a position that is not in the published sources. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

MassResistance
Hi, could you take a look at MassResistance (Talk) - multiple editors have been trying to reach consensus on NPOV language, but we've got an obstinate editor who doesn't appear to grok/follow WP policies... thanks for any assistance you can provide. —EqualRights (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)