Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
CFredkin (talk | contribs)
Line 89: Line 89:


:Please see the section immediately before this one, which I believe you started.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 01:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:Please see the section immediately before this one, which I believe you started.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 01:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
: That is for a different edit, related to the "Awards" section. Here I am asking you to provide a rationale for the deletion of the content about Rubio's chief of staff. [[User:Cwobeel|Cwobeel]] ([[User talk:Cwobeel|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:21, 20 April 2014

Template:BLP noticeboard


Patriot Act reauthorization of roving wiretaps

Regarding this edit, and my partial revert and attempt to improve it... first off, CFredkin, I'm not meaning to wikistalk you; I just noticed this in the same paragraph as the one we were just discussing above re Roe. Your edit removed the term "roving wiretaps" despite the fact that this was the provision of the Patriot Act that that the sentence and source were talking about. (Once again, the source is the OnTheIssues page for Rubio; it simply says "Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)".) Anyway, I assume the omission was an error and restored.

Re your added explanation about what the Patriot Act is for: we need to be careful with this kind of thing; too much can sound like apologetics. Wiretaps sound bad, but catching terrorists sounds good. This can introduce a subtle spin, contrary to NPOV. If we must have it, it needs to be brief and accurate. We can't say that the roving wiretaps provision applies only to suspects outside the US or that a warrant isn't needed; it's not at all clear to me that either is true. Better to leave it vague and general. In the spirit of compromise I kept some explanation but simplified the wording and put in a pipelink that should help readers.

P.S. If you put in a colon right before your reply, it will indent, which helps make the thread more readable. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I missed this. Thanks for the tip. I also appreciate the calm feedback.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Rubio's war on poverty?

I added a short note about Rubio's biggest policy speech in at least the last year and it got reverted.

So what if anything can be said about his new policy? Hcobb (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just the source, how about this one?

In 2014, Rubio called for replacing the minimum wage mandate on private employers with taxpayer funded wage subsidies for the working poor.[1]

Hcobb (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section on presidential aspirations

Rubio is considered a potential nominee, so we ought to add a section for this aspect. Cwobeel (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Section

The content in the Awards section which was just added should have secondary sources to indicate significance.CFredkin (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. In these cases, it is best to add the template {{citation needed}} instead of deleting. Cwobeel (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm referring to secondary sources which provide some indication that the award is significant.CFredkin (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant enough if the sources include Marco Rubio's own senate.gov page and other sources. I don't get your edits, you seem to put the bar at whatever height you feel like. I can start again a new thread at BLP/N if that is what you want to do, but after a while it will become tedious and WP:TEND Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both politicians at the federal level and organizations generate high volumes of press releases. Not all of them are notable for mention in BLP's. Providing secondary sources to indicate their significance is a reasonable expectation. Please let me know if you can find any instances of me citing content only based on primary sources in the recent past.CFredkin (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You got it wrong again, Primary sources are not shunned in Wikipedia, see WP:PRIMARY, in particular the sentence that starts with: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruptive

@CFredkin: Why this deletion? [1]. First you removed it because you argued that the sources were not valid. I then added sources as requested. Then you delete it again because you think it does not belong to a section. Are you doing this in purpose to disrupt? Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, providing a reliable secondary source to indicate the significance of a press release is a reasonable expectation. I don't believe blogs are typically considered reliable sources. Additionally you added the statement to the section on his tenure in the House. The press release was generated during his tenure in the Senate.CFredkin (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubio chief of staff

@CFredkin: First you delete this content [2] requesting additional sources, which I added. After I add sources, you remove it again [3] with an edit summary of "Not relevant to tenure in House". I then move it to a more appropriate section, and you follow with a 3rd revert [4] with this edit summary: "Rm content per article Talk", when there is nos such discussion.

Are you trying to be disruptive just for the fun of it? What is your rationale for your reverts? Cwobeel (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section immediately before this one, which I believe you started.CFredkin (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is for a different edit, related to the "Awards" section. Here I am asking you to provide a rationale for the deletion of the content about Rubio's chief of staff. Cwobeel (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kucinich, Jackie (8 January 2014). "Rubio: War on Poverty has been lost". www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 January 2014.

Leave a Reply