User talk:Munijym

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)[reply

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

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
  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:
  talk) 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I suggest you read up on

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)[reply]