User talk:Motility2002

--NPOV warning removed - edits were made in good faith -- -Patstuart 01:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits out of deference to the rules. Your additions were unsourced, which means they run afoul of WP:RS. Please do not again state that his son is homosexual without a source. I don't doubt the fact, but the it isn't against the rules. Secondly, it was clearly a POV edit (i.e., the words "His father's voting record on gay rights issues is poor"). If that were reworded, it would be OK. Please also understand, that I changed the wording as a recent-page patroller, not as a regular editor of the page; I revert pages when they go afoul of policy, not when I don't like the edit. I personally don't care if the man has a gay son; if he does, let it be said, but please, let it be proved with a source, and stated in a more NPOV fashion (e.g., "Knollenberg's voting record is largely against the gay cause"). I am glad to allow dialogue, but please let us take it to the talk page. Giving me a warning was not at all appropriate; if you have an issue, please state it in a kind manner. -Patstuart 19:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The comment that Congressman Knollenberg's son is homosexual is now sourced. You state that "[y]our additions were unsourced", as though more than one substantive revision was unsourced. In fact, the only other substantive edit was sourced, that being the reference to Congressman Knollenberg's record on gay rights issues. That edit is not a POV edit because it is a statement of substantiated fact, so I will not change it. I note that your deletion of my material resulted in the reinstatement of prior unsourced comments that seemed to reflect political bias. I feel, therefore, that you have operated in accordance with a double standard, not the Wikipedia rules. As to the warning that I sent you, I think that is an appropriate response to your unexplained, wholesale deletion of material of substance, particularly when you failed to engage me in dialog about the issues you had with the material that you were deleting -- and particularly since you had deleted my material twice.Motility2002 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding a source. But please keep in mind this quote from WP:VAND: Note: Do not use these templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement. As a page patroller, we occasionally make mistakes, and confronting us in gentle language is much preferable to giving a warning. Thank you for your time. -Patstuart 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We were not in a "content dispute" You thwarted the opportunity for a dispute by twice deleting my material without engaging in any dialog with me. In fact, I would have welcomed a content dispute involving healthy dialog.

Be advised that you breached the following Wikipedia policies by deleting my material:


 * Assume good faith
 * Assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.


 * Civility
 * Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia from working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed.


 * Editing policy
 * Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid deleting information wherever possible.

In the absence of dialog, which would undoubtedly have included an expression of your intent, it was perfectly reasonable for me to conclude that your deletion of my material was vandalism. Below is the definition of vandalism, as well as a category of vandalism that matches your action.


 * "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It is, and needs to be, removed from the encyclopedia."


 * "Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
 * Blanking
 * Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit."

On the basis of my interpretation of your action as vandalism, my warning was completely appropriate. You could have avoided this entire situation by engaging in dialog rather than a wholesale, gratuitous deletion. I am well aware of the special policies pertaining to biographies and I am anticipating that you will attempt to rely on the following portion of that policy. "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles...." Though I initially failed to include a source for one aspect of my material, that aspect -- the sexuality of Congressman Knollenberg's son -- is not necessarily controversial. If you believe that it is, then perhaps that is why we are not able to see eye to eye on this matter. Motility2002 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ma'am (or is it sir?), I have told you several times that I made the changes in error. I will remove the warning from your page; but recent patrol editors make mistakes (see the userbox on my user page); it is not something we are proud of, but it happens occasionally. I have apologized for it. Now please, this is not an issue worth getting worked up about. I have apologized, I believe you see my point; so I ask you to listen to your own advice and assume a good faith edit. So let's not argue about this any further, unless you have something briefly to add to my comments. Thank you. -Patstuart 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you must have intended the above response for another editor. You never said to me previously that you made changes in error, and you never apologized. Motility2002 03:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)