User talk:Senor Island

Please keep neutral point of view in mind when editing articles, especially about topics like politicians where many people may disagree. Thanks. Meelar (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your message at Talk:Doc Hastings. Meelar (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Meelar's comment was in regard to someone else's point of view, I don't consider it valid. When one adds to a page, LARGE WELL-KNOWN GROUP says POLITICIAN's NAME is pro/anti-IMPORTANT POLITICAL AGENDA ITEM, it is a neutral point of view as long as the politician's advocates (if any) and detractors (if any) are both represented in the entry. Again, if the group mentioned is large and well-known and the agenda item is important. I think editing so that a politician's high ratings come first and negatives second makes for a better entry. For two-sided issues, for instance abortion, I think saying someone is "Pro-choice" or "Pro-life" is better than writing it from the negative point of view.

When I started editing Doc Hastings page, for instance, only interest groups that gave him low ratings were listed, including groups that I'd never heard of. Senor Island (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Senor Island[reply]

McDermott Edits[edit]

Thank you for your help with the McDermott article. However, several of your edits are more appropriate to articles on legislation, not on a politician associated with the legislation. Please stop. rewinn (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop spamming biographical articles with long descriptions of bills. If you want to write an article about a bill, create an article about the bill. If you like, we can take this to RfD. rewinn (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]