Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Robert - feel free to blank this again, as is your right, but can I just ask you to slow down for a minute and step back from this? You're fast approaching old territory again. I know you mean well here, and I've supported you in the past. Just ... chill, take it easy, and careful with the comments about others - Alison ^❤ 22:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Barnstars? Can't have that!!

		The Biography Barnstar
		You do a huge amount of work on biographies - you always have in your many years here! It's high time that was acknowledged :) - Alison ❤ 03:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. You placed an Inline Citation tag on this page though it seems to have citations for most everything there. You also placed an NPOV but there's no current or recent discussion about an NPOV problem, nor does it seem to exist in the article. Please explain your reasoning on the talk page so it can be addressed. Best, MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Better safe than sorry I always say. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed better safe, thank you. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: This Edit
Hi Robert,
I do not really care to engage in a lengthy discussion of why a cite needed tag is needed for an unreferenced statement of slightly dubious accuracy. Do you? If so, then I suggest you start a talk page discussion of why a cite needed tag is not needed and why the statement you added is not OR. I will join in then. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have no problem with adding a fact tag to the line of text in question. The problem was that the text had simply been deleted at least two times previously with no indication why and no tag added. I would not have deleted or contested the tag, so this misunderstanding should never have arisen. The only reason I added the hidden comment (re "deleting" not "tagging" the sentence in question) is because I didn't think I would get any response on the talk page. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing that a fact/citation needed tag is necessary for the unsourced statement you added. The problem I saw was just the opposite of what you describe. The text about never losing any more elections was added (by you, in fact) without any indication that it was being added or of why it was being added as shown here. I removed it telling explicitly why I removed it."remove uncited unsupported editorializing that is somewhat inaccurate that was added without explanation"

Perhaps you will agree that the uncited material should be removed from the BLP? I am planning on doing this later and will provide an explanation on the article's talk page, if you would like to debate it there. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he never lost a subsequent election (after 1990) is borne out by the totality of the article's text. There is no reference to any election after 1990 which he did not win, and there are no missing elections or gaps in the curriculum vitae.Nevertheless I will search out a reference link that confirms that. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: "Thank you for agreeing that a fact/citation needed tag is necessary for the unsourced statement you added" -- does this mean that if I had added the citation needed tag (an oversight on my part, I admit) that you would not have deleted it? Why not have just assumed good faith and added the tag yourself, rather than delete the text? I have added cite tags thousands of times whilst wikignoming, excepting text which appears to be inaccurate or untruthful, which is not the case here. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rv "Nevertheless I will search out a reference link that confirms that" as apparently other editors have tried to do so and not succeeded. In any event the matter is closed (as per Walker talkpage colloquy). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you know, because you deleted a whole section within 2 minutes of my posting it here. Thus, my comment which now appears below--that I think it best that neither one of us should comment on the other's talk page henceforth. To put it another way, the deletion of my discussion here, which of course, you have every right to do, proves that the best course of action is to confine remarks and debate very strictly to article content on the article's pages. Just wanted to make this clear. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I will propose that neither of us should ask questions or make comments on the other's talk page. I will, however, as a courtesy, post a notice here from time to time when there is an article talk page discussion which involves some of your edits.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you must, you must. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]