User talk:Argyriou/Archive1

Archive of discussions regarding Alameda Measure A and "Mowster's" use of the page as a campaign page.

what is your problem with alameda measure a??

Hey - what is the problem you have with Alameda Measure A? You don't even live in Alameda - you live in Oakland. And you reverted my links to external sites from the Alameda page - those links are fair game.

You shouldn't be authoritative over the Alameda web page - you don't even live here. And your political views are well documents, so you are exercising your own biases by editing the Alameda Measure A wiki. Dave H. _{19:57, 14 August 2006}

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

I'll be living in Alameda before the year is over. Your Alameda measure a page isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a campaign flyer, and doesn't belong here. Your edits to the Alameda, California article don't add any substantive content to the article. If you want to write an encyclopedic - descriptive, neutral, and free of personal attacks - article about Measure A, feel free. But the "article" you wrote is no such thing. Argyriou 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So you won't screw with a link on the Alameda page to an encyclopedic article on Measure A? There's no reason there shouldn't be a link from the Alameda entry to a Measure A entry. A link, by definition, isn't substantive. And you still don't live in Alameda. Dave H. _{14:33, 15 August 2006}

Ooh! Ooh! You'll ask the Wikipedia administrators to take action against me! Oooh! Ooh! You're pretty emotionally wrapped up in something yourself. In the nineteen eighties, it was Dungeons & Dragons, today, it's Wikipedia. How's this page - starting to look more balanced? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Measure_A _{15:11, 15 August 2006}

   Argyriou 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

       Your Alameda Measure A article is a better start than the older Alameda measure a article, beginning with the title. However, it still needs much improvement. An article about Measure A should be an overview of the whole measure, beginning with its enactment, with current controversies at the end of the article. The article should:

           * Begin with an introduction which briefly summarizes the law.
           * Explains the historical context in which the law was passed.
           * Discusses changes made or attempted before the current controversy, if any.
           * Discuss the controversy by explaining:
                 o What's new that makes people want to change Measure A (Alameda Point development)
                 o Summarizes, fairly, the arguments made on each side of the issue.

       Some of those changes can be made by shuffling existing text around, but your descriptions of the advocates for relaxing measure A restrictions is still incredibly unfair and biased, and needs serious re-work. Argyriou 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a work in progress. Your description on the City of Alameda entry of Measure A advocates as a "vocal minority" oppposed to any development on alameda point is inaccurate, and incredibly unfair and biased. I touched it up to make it less biased. If you're moving to Alameda by the end of the year, why don't you get smart on Measure A and make some contributions to the page rather than just flagging it continually.

Dave H. _{15:51, 15 August 2006}

Well, as I say - get smart on Alameda and the history of Measure A and help me balance it out, rather than just harping and over-reacting.

Dave H. _{16:29, 15 August 2006}

Alameda Measure A

Argyriou - you slapped my hand for introducing POV to the Alameda Measure A page. I expect you to do the same for Michael Kruegur. I'm toeing the wikipedia line - I expect him to do the same. mowster. —The preceding

From: Mowster Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 4:05 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Alameda Measure A article - repeated POV inserts/reverts

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Measure_A

I'm not going to take lectures from Argyriou about 'vandalising' the Keep Measure A page. I keep removing Benderboy30's additions, because they are opinion, and point-of-view, not fact. As evidenced by his entry on Nov. 2 - "addition of general opposition opinions to measure A"

Aside from that Argyriou has his own bias about the question of Measure A in Alameda (he's against it) - so he is NOT in fair position to act as judge and jury over edits to the page - he should be disabled from making changes to the page, as he is biased on the issue, and repeatedly asserts authority over the page and my attempts to remove point of view.

I've included the offending text below, which, incidentally, was not formatted correctly either.

(cur) (last) 23:58, 7 November 2006 70.137.142.153 (Talk) (→Current Controversy - - Removed point of view, opinion - not factual data - from the entry.) (cur) (last) 23:50, 6 November 2006 Argyriou (Talk | contribs) (rvv) (cur) (last) 22:21, 6 November 2006 70.137.142.153 (Talk) (→Current controversy) (cur) (last) 03:20, 6 November 2006 Argyriou (Talk | contribs) (rv POV removal of factual information, remove blog from external links) (cur) (last) 06:51, 5 November 2006 Mowster (Talk | contribs) (→Current controversy) (cur) (last) 16:30, 2 November 2006 Benderboy30 (Talk | contribs) m (addition of general opposition opinions to measure A, Alameda, CA)

With the passage of Measure A, the result was an instantaneous limitiation of available housing stoc —The preceding

   * (cur) (last) 23:55, 10 November 2006 70.137.142.153 (Talk) (→External links)
   * (cur) (last) 23:54, 10 November 2006 70.137.142.153 (Talk) (→some people insist on playing games by removing balancing information from this entry)
   * (cur) (last) 02:18, 8 November 2006 Argyriou (Talk | contribs) (→Bay Farm Island controversy - rm uncited info)
   * (cur) (last) 01:38, 8 November 2006 Drini (Talk | contribs) (readd ONLY with references. That is the wikipedia way to sort controversies and disputes)
   * (cur) (last) 01:12, 8 November 2006 70.137.142.153 (Talk) (→Current controversy - - removed POV. I have escalated this to Wikipedia admins)

I've already rejected mediation. Mediation on an AfD is nonsense, and I won't participate. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Alameda Measure A . For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by contact the Mediation Committee directly .

FYI one "Chris Thompson" derided you (User:Argyriou) for your anonymity in the Water Cooler in the