Munijym

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Munijym (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Meg Whitman, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Meg Whitman was changed by Munijym (u) (t) deleting 8746 characters on 2010-10-25T20:15:34+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The Josh Gottheimer quote you are adding is sourced to Josh Gottheimer. It certainly doesn't belong in the article's opening paragraphs. And if you are going to include partisan assessments you need to balance them appropriately. WrenandStimpy (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is attributed to Josh Gottheimer with a link to his article, are you disputing that is his opinion? Do you have anything to show his opinion is disputed? And what exactly negative muck do you think should be placed to "balance" that people assessing his record feel he is rather accomplished in these areas? He is generally well-respected and considered accomplished. The intro should actually be much longer and there seems to already be an abundant effort to add negative information to the article. Munijym (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is his opinion more important than any other notable figure's? Are you unaware that Barney Frank has received a great deal of criticism and been the subject of several controversies? Why would we include only opinionated accolades from partisan figures in the introduction to a politician's article? WrenandStimpy (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did a review of one of those "controversies" and found that in the Gobie affair it was Gobie who was morally corrupt and Frank had called for the investigation. As for the criticism - is there any from credible sources that should be used in the article? Or is it Fox News ranting for ratings? Also you imply there were several controversies, what are the other ones? Munijym (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed why Gottheimer's opinion is particularly notable or more relevant than any of the many other opinions expressed on Frank and his career's work. Accolades from partisans don't belong in the lead of an article on a politician. WrenandStimpy (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barney Frank. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kelly ^hi! 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If this may seem like I'm talking down to you, Munijym, I'm sorry but you either haven't done much editing on Wikipedia or else you are an inveterate POV pusher. As you well know there are all sorts of folks who have little good to say about Barney Frank and all sorts of folks who think he's the cat's meow. Taking the specific comments of a particular person or set of people on either the pro-Frank or anti-Frank side and placing it in the lead WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG is obvious POV and UNDUE WEIGHT. Cease and Desist. Also put comments relating to changes in the article on the ARTICLE'S talk page not on the editor's. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Josh's assessment was an introduction to Frank's speech printed in Josh's book, not some offhanded "partisan" remark but an observation on great speechmakers he had compiled for the book, I looked at the source. The other opinions were also equally broad and presented neutrally. Instead of supplying any reliable sources that Frank has been in "several controversies" or that he is widely disliked you have asserted that I must simply be wrong. Please see WP:Lead which is clear that Frank's lead is way too short and that the summary information I was using - broad assessments, was just what belongs there.Munijym (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

From a review of the book: Despite its uplifting title, this wide-ranging anthology admirably includes both the most famous civil rights speeches of American history and lesser known, often angrier voices. Organizing the speeches chronologically, editor Gottheimer, who was one of President Clinton's speechwriters, delves as far back as 1789 ... Gottheimer has limited the collection to speeches about African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, gays and lesbians and women, the astounding variety of rhetorical and political strategies enlisted by the speakers are not only instructive but make for engaging reading. ... As Gottheimer acknowledges, the pickings among present-day civil rights speeches are slim and acidic (ACT UP pioneer Larry Kramer rails against his own audience in 1987, for example), but the selection is never less than judicious, revealing and notably authoritative.

I can't speak to the merits, but please do note and mind WP:3RR, a policy you may have violated. You're probably right that opinions like this are undue in the lede, but don't get carried away! Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

and you removed what Barney Frank said on CNBC. There is nothing pov about it. It is his words. BTW, suggesting that it is "building a platform for Fox News" could be taken as a bad faith judgment. Truthsort (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious there are at least a few people dedicated to a crusade against Frank and are happy to utilize every way imanginable to make him look bad despite policies against this sort of thing. Maybe after the election it can be fixed? Munijym (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Meg Whitman

I suggest you read up on WP:NOTNEWS WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. That section which you want to include is specific to the campaign and has very little if anything to do with Whitman personally. It doesn't matter if it was in the news since wikipedia is not a newspaper. It would appear to be the only reason to inlude this is for partisan political purposes and WP is not the place for that. Arzel (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It was pretty clear to national news media that Whitman wants to use attack ads even though there is public distaste for them, that is certainly relevant to her character and contradicts her repeated claims that she does not endorse negative campaigning. Please check your facts. Munijym (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicky Diaz for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Nicky Diaz, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Diaz until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Robofish (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)