User talk:Dpky

Welcome!

Hello, Dpky, and

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 5 albert square (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! Lionel (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your note yesterday. I've sent the article to your email address.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few concerns about some of the things you've been adding to the section of the Michele Bachmann article on the light bulb ban. Particularly the reference to NEMA's mission statement- there is a Wikipedia policy against original research, and making connections between NEMA's goals of promoting their members interests (which may well include offshore production of CFLs, etc) and a perceived lack of regard for personal freedom is original research. Nevard (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I understand your concerns. I think what needs to be resolved is "what is the point of including NEMA in the article". If the point is to jukstapose that Bachmann made an inacurate statement, then we need to note what makes NEMA's claims credible (or not). If the point is to debate the issue of light bulbs then it is not appropriate for the article.

Together, I think we'll get it right though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpky (talk • contribs)

The point of including NEMA in the article is that they have been quoted in

synthesis. Nevard (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michele Bachmann. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Muboshgu but you are the one doing all the reverts without using the talk page Dpky (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Both Muboshgu and I have posted to the talk page. And I note that the 3RR rule applies whether or not the talk page is used. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The time stamp of your posts to the talk page indicates it was done after many reversions by MuboshguDpky (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, good editors avoid the use of the words "critics charge that", or similar - see

If a fact has no clear relevance to a subject then should it be included at all? Is the paragraph about the controversy or about the farm? (I was considering suggesting it be moved to a different area as it seems to have nothing to do with family life)Dpky (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section probably should be retitled something like "Family life and businesses", but I don't think there is enough length to split it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 08:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. Her business life is intertwined with her family. But would such a title make that connection on the readers behalf? I come back to "why is the farm noteworthy". If the noteworthiness is only due to accusations of hypocrisy then maybe it belongs someplace else in the article along side of the policies it seems to conflict with.

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