User talk:Arbor8

Archives

Archive 1: 2010
Archive 2: 2011
Archive 3: 2012

Welcome!

I used to be Arbor832466 but for the sake of simplicity, I am now just Arbor8. Shorter name. Still me.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I hate to think what so many of our political bios would look like without your constant attention--biased left, biased right, unsourced mendacity, unsourced puffery. Your many contributions help maintain Wikipedia as a worthwhile resource in this important area. Well done! Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanan edits

Hi -

Thanks for your note re: my edits to Vern Buchanan's page. Please review my edits for neutral POV, and if I come off as biased, please let me know and edit/delete as you see fit. I was just trying to update for the new Congress with some properly-cited legislative issues (and the 'alleged' thing just caught my eye, as he hadn't been found guilty of anything yet, and I watch a lot of Law & Order :-).

Best.

Jmaiella — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmaiella (talk • contribs) 20:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cotton Rogers

I briefly edited under my IP address 74.79.39.105 before deciding to make my self avail to the benefits of an account (I'm not sure what your getting at) since i enjoyed editing so much. also I was not editing against consensus just against your opinions (and maybe one other person) also you grossly oversimplified my argument it was a lot more than "I liked the other way better" to be honest I thought you were editing against consensus I will keep on editing Kirsten Gillibrand you arguments are species at best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotton Rogers (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have changed wording and added both sides of the argument in attempt to satisfy both our concerns since your previous edit I believe was unneutral while my changes are neutral and give balance to both sides not one over the other any way let me know your opinion on the recent changes and additions as I find them fair and admit maybe my prevoius wording was a little hastyCotton Rogers (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dean Dozen

I think you definitely have a point with questioning the notable nature of my edits. I am making the changes for the sake of uniformity and updating outdated pages. A lot of these candidates don't even have mention of running an election in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesco77 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Robert Dold

Hi Arbor8. Congressional Dold does not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. I have checked with his office. This article you linked is mistaken. That's why, unless you have a quote of video footage of him saying as much, it should be removed. He is not in favor of gay marriage, but doesn't support a constitutional ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIBSTRBS (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original research. If you can find a reliable secondary source, then by all means make the edit. Please see WP:OR for more on the topic. Arbor8 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arbor. I understand, but as you can see on his website (http://www.doldforcongress.com/pages/social_issues/295.php), he never mentions supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It is disingenuous to say otherwise. You are intentionally misrepresenting his position, and clearly your view is far from neutral. Don't you think if he supported something as drastic as a constitutional ban on an issue he would note it on his website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIBSTRBS (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he doesn't mention it on his website doesn't indicate anything other than that he doesn't mention it on his website. Any other extrapolation is your interpretation, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Arbor8 (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WIBSTRBS, do you have any affiliation with the Dold campaign? Arbor8 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I think claim is extremely biased and unfounded. Encyclopedias don't just cite things as fact based on a single news source, especially if it's not based off a quote, photo, video, etc. I felt the claim that Robert Dold supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage sounded false, so I did my homework and even spoke to his office to confirm it's not true. It seems you have your own reasons to keep something you know to be untrue on Wikipedia, and so I'll take it up with the Wiki staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIBSTRBS (talk • contribs) 02:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Heitkamp

Hi! Would you mind posting on the talk page at Heidi Heitkamp to explain why you think the part about "pay-to-play" is not notable? You have deleted this material two times without posting anything on the talk page. I don't think that is very constructive. In any event, your input would be appreciated. Lesbianadvocate (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]