User talk:Thenewphilly

February 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to David Oh, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.

As to your specific edits: 1) Please stop chaning the succession box at the bottom of the page. It says he succeeded Jack Kelly because, in 2007, Kelly won the seventh at-large slot on Council. In 2011, of course, David Oh won the seventh at-large slot. Makes sense? 2) Please stop blanking the military service controversy section. It is an accurate and blanced summary of a noteworthy controversy, cited with nonpartisan sources. It summarizes the confusion, and what David Oh did to respond to it. Again, stop blanking it. It was a noteworthy part of the campaign and is summarized in a balanced way. 3) Please stop altering the tenure subsection of the City Council section. As you can see, all that information is taken off of his official city website. That site is administered by the city and by the council. If you believe it's wrong, please try to find a source to back that up. This is an encyclopedia, so information has to be verifiable. What's there now is verified; if you feel it's wrong, please find some way of proving it. So again, welcome, but please take note of these points. EATC (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction
Actually, I just looked at Oh's Council page, and it looks like for some reason they put Brian O'Neill's Committee assignments under his page. I'm going to go back and make necessary changes by looking at indivudal committee pages. See, this is an example of why using talk pages, or at least edit summaries is useful.

I would, however, ask to you to still respect the other two points I made above. EATC (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Message
Hi! Thanks for your message. I am curious as to what innacuracies may be in the article, so I do look forward to seeing your research. I am glad the blanking is no longer occuring. I know some people have a tendency to believe on this site that if something is included that may not be anything but supportive of a political figure, the author must have something against that candidate. This is not the case here. I did not vote for or against Mr. Oh; I do not live in the city. However, I followed the election, and as I'm sure you saw, the Green Beret "controversy" was a noteworthy one in the campaign when it broke. Was it the most important thing? No. Does it mean that everything else Oh did does not matter? No. But it was noteworthy, so I put in a summary, outlining the story, as well as Oh's feelings and actions regarding it. It should allow a reader to walk-away with an idea of what the story was about, on both sides, and what was done. No imbalance one way or another.

So thanks again, and I look forward to seeing that research! Best, EATC (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Hey! Thanks for your message, and for your work. I can actually see what you did in your sandbox, so you don't have to worry about it being hidden or anything like that. I appreciate your efforts. Give me some time to take a look at what you did and found, and we'll reconvene. Thank you again, and we'll talk soon. Take care, EATC (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Late March 2012
Hey, Sorry about that. Give me a few days to take a look. Thanks and take care, EATC (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Hi. Sorry again about that delay, but such are the perils of having a job that frequently takes you away from home for long stretches. It's just something that's going to happen from time-to-time. I have updated the section, incorporating some of the information from your work, along with some from those related sources contained in it. Again, I don't feel a rewrite is necessary, but did necessitate some tweaking and expanding. Give it a look and let me know what you think. Best EATC (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)