User talk:Inverarity
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Inverarity, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 10:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lee County Sheriff's Office
[edit]I reverted your edits on the article about the Lee County Sheriff's Office. That article is about the agency. Their notability is not based on Mike Scott. There is no reason to fill a huge amount of the article with a political incident that is mainly of local interest only. There is an article on Scott, where his remarks and the controversy are mentioned. Also, just FYI, the other sheriff you referenced is named John McDougall, not Bill. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD
[edit]The article on Christian Meister has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is here: [1] Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because Niteshift36, likes someone (Sheriff(Michael J. Scott) and doesn't like his political or personal opponents, doesn't mean he should delete them out of existence. There is personal bias here. Niteshift36 called the subject of the entry "certifiable" in his edit notes, another point he says "Also probably not a good idea to list a job he got fired from." why not? If he got fired from an important job it should be listed, If I find the date of termination I'll put it in there. Your editing patterns since October 6 make it clear you are affiliated somehow with Sheriff Scott, and are therefore unqualified to be editing these particular articles. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
I do not know any of the participants, come from another part of Florida, and researched these people because it was interesting, and untold (when I started writing, the "Barack Hussein Obama Controversy" was not on Sheriff Scott's personal entry (or the Mike Scott section in Lee County Sheriff Dept entry, which was basically a campaign press release), because someone deleted it. Otherwise I probably would not have started an entry. (guess I should have looked at the history)
Some of Niteshift36's edits to the article are appropriate, but deleting entire sections, and entire occurrences is not. This is an wiki article about a public figure in a little part of the world, who has an involvement with another public figure in a little part of the world (who inserted himself into something big and doesn't want to back out). All of these things are important facts and of NATIONAL importance news reported on by national media (the local sources are more thorough, and have primacy). Much of Meister's personal bio comes from him in his official campaign web site, his public press releases, and voter information guides like [2]. Niteshift36 wanted outside references beyond Meister's public statements proving Meister worked on the school newspaper, took undergraduate law classes, tutored Piano or English (he is bilingual). This is kind of detail is beyond wikipedias's goals. Yes people can lie, but Biographies of living people need to be done, and their public statements about themselves should be accepted unless called into question by better sources. I am using what I can to update the references. But Niteshift36's constant deletions of sections and references makes the process of improving an article difficult. (and he wants the entire wiki entry deleted, just a few hours after it was first posted). It seems Niteshift36's goal here is to gum up the works and keep anything embarrassing under wraps.
Other referenced material Niteshift36 deleted, claiming it was not relevant to Mr. Meister's entry. He deleted the mention of an ongoing lawsuit between two political opponents. That information is exactly what needs to be in the entry. The references were legal documents housed at the campaign website. If the case is resolved or thrown out, that will then be noted. Furthermore, the accurate, referenced controversy surrounding Sheriff Scott is crucial to the biography of Christian Meister and his campaign for Sheriff (even if it is quixotic). It is called democratic participation. And it is wiki-worthy
Excuse the length of my defense, any inappropriate tenses or verb forms, and any defenses that neared ad hominem. Inverarity (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, where to start: I said "certifiable" in the edit comments because it would give the wrong impression to put it in the text without explaination. It is not an insult. Graduating from an academy does not make one certified. It makes them ELIGIBLE for certification (certifiable). Next, you claim that it is a dislike of Meister that is getting him deleted. Wrong. Wikipedia has standards for notability. Meister simply does not meet them. Feel free to review the policies yourself and tell me where I am wrong. Next issue: I do not work for Scott. I have never worked for Scott. I have voted for him. That certainly is not a conflict of interest. Next issue: Meister was not even at the rally where Scott used Obama's middle name. He has NOTHING to do with the issue. He may benefit from it, but he can't piggy-back notability off of someone else. It would be like trying to claim you were a Super Bowl champion because your favorite team won. This is a BIOGRAPHY of Christian Meister, yet you want to keep talking about Mike Scott. Next, asking for verification of facts being claimed is completely legitimate. And using the candidates own website doesn't really rise to the standards of wp:rs. Self-published sources are not reliable. Sending a press release from a self-published site to a PR site that does no verifiation is not reliable. Something like a newspaper, govt. website etc is neutral POV. As for his lawsuit: You make mention of it (again, more about Scott than Meister), without telling us WHY he sued or how it ended. Further, the source of the documents again is from Meisters own website, not a neutral one. Also, you claim it is from "2 opponents". Obviously you didn't read carefully. Scott is the only opponent in the suit. The other sheriff is in a totally different county where Meister is not running. This is "original research" because I'm not going to do all the leg work to prove it since I'm not putting it in the article: He is suing them because he got fired. He failed out of field training and was let go because of his failure. That's what it's all about. He wasn't fired from an "important job", he was fired from being a trainee. He wasn't even allowed to go out in a patrol car on his own. Not terribly "important". And you don't have to be a buddy of Scott to know this. Every agency around here knows it, that's why nobody will hire him. As for your accusation that I'm trying to keep anything "embarrasing" under wraps..... again, I'll just tell you: The law is clear and Scott didn't violate the Hatch Act. But the OSC is REQUIRED by law to investigate any complaint made, regardless or whether or not it has any merit. Saying Scott is "under investigation", without providing both sides of the story is misleading and violates WP:BLP. Providing both sides in this article goes back to turning an article that is supposed to be about Meister into an article about Scott.
Now, you've made several speculations about my motives and my live. In the future, I would suggest you ask before making these false allegations. I am following wiki-policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Article deleted
[edit]The vote was to delete the article on Meister becuase of a lack of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Galactus Edit War Mediation
[edit]Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)