User talk:Arbor8

Archives

Archive 1 : 2010 Archive 2: 2011 Archive 3: 2012 Archive 4: 2013

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

	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]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ann Kirkpatrick page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sippydog (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your Talk page. Arbor8 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take another look at the

Please have the courtesy to let me know if you find a sentence objectionable rather than deleting the entire section containing it. I appreciate your editing, but in some cases you completely changed the meaning of what Mike Pompeo said (for example, he didn't allege that Muslim leaders who remained silent following the Boston Marathon bombing should be criticized, but that Muslim leaders HAD been silent which was empirically untrue and therefore defamatory). I also responded to a King of Nothing request to provide a citation, only to have that citation removed, the reworded section removed, and the original section, complete with "citation needed" replaced 3 times. It's important to remember that Mike Pompeo is a very controversial figure who has made his career largely by making extremely provocative statements, many of which are demonstrably false (one can count the number of Muslim organizations that criticized the Boston Marathon bombing or the parts per million of CO2 and number of deviant weather events, for example). This is the Wikipedia policy on deletions: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." Mvakkur (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of Nothing, thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look later today. Mvakkur - your edits are inappropriate. I don't owe you anything beyond a courteous edit summary when I fix them. Arbor8 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cheers. King of Nothing (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I just didn't think it was relevant to the Wikipedia page. The information didn't seem connected to anything - are ailments included on the pages of most famous people? I removed it once. I won't remove it again. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.210.69 (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Since you've already weighed in on this subject at talk:David Schweikert, would you mind also expressing your opinion on the topic at talk:Tim Huelskamp and talk:Justin Amash? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. In other news, "The Asshole Factor" is going to be the name of my new reality TV show. :) Arbor8 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'state senate' is not a proper noun without the name of the state. I have been correcting this mistake on Joni Ernst's page and Tiller54 and you have been changing it back. Why?

Iowa doesn't need to be mentioned three times in the into paragraph. That's exessive, don't you think?

And finally, a state senator who is running for the US Senate (as a Republican, also included) by definition is a politician. Do you disagree?

I don't understand why Tiller54 is being so obdurate about reversing these improvements again and again. I'm just trying to improve the page . . .

24.19.210.69 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors disagree with your edits, and have stated their reasoning over and over again. Continued reverts (and sockpuppet accounts) amount to vandalism. Please stop. Arbor8 (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not entirely remove content as you did to Ben Nelson. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy Thank you. Ncgardener (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."[reply]

I was about to revert your recent edit (though I was beaten to it) because most pages here from what I see list spouses' occupations(such as Tom Brady). I would not support going into great detail about it unless it was relevant to the spouse(as his ownership of the newspapers is in Pingree's case) but it is relevant. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how.

Other stuff always exists; that shouldn't affect the decisions we make in a particular article. Arbor8 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

For starters, knowing his occupation provides a clearer picture of her family life. If there was an article about him, I could see not including it(though other pages do even for people with their own articles), but I see no reason in this case to not be consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC ongoing on an article you recently edited. See Talk:Cory Gardner#RfC: Is it relevant to include Gardner's track record on specific issues? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current