User talk:HenryBrooksAdams

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tom Coburn. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

American Crossroads

Henry, you are wrong. The NY Times story on American Crossroads and related conservative organizations clearly states that Crossroads Media serves American Crossroads. See excerpt below (bold is my addition):

Political Office Mates

The group’s Republican connections begin with location: While its public address is a drop box at a United Parcel Service store in Alexandria, Va., Mr. DeMaura actually works out of space that is sublet from a Republican consulting shop, Crossroads Media, whose other clients include the national Republican Party, the Republican Governors Association and American Crossroads, a Karl Rove-backed group raising millions to support Republican candidates.

Please don't change it again, as this is accurate and well sourced.Myk60640 (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A Belated Welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, HenryBrooksAdams. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Thank you very much for fighting the vandalism of Phildgeo on the Vista, California article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions

There are two problems with your attempts change Jeff Sessions: First, it makes the text appear less neutral. More importantly, it gives the impression that Sessions opposes the legislation out of a vindictive desire to oppose gay-rights groups. That is highly unlikely. It is far more likely he opposes the legislation because he doesn't agree with its aims. -Rrius (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

REPLY TO RRIUS: This section on "gay rights" is loaded and inserted prominently for POV purposes. Rather than try to fix the loaded language (the mere term "gay rights," for example, is a political term, as is "gay marriage") I've just reprioritized the section so it focuses more on the most prominent public policy issues that Sessions and any other senator deals with. I have not deleted any of the substance that has been previously inserted. HenryBrooksAdams (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)User:HenryBrooksAdams

I hadn't read through the actual section, just what you changed. While I still disagree with you about that opening sentence, the rest of the section was appalling and was clearly constructed as an attack on Sessions. I've done what I can to mitigate that. If you want to help, you can find out what he actually believes, so the opening of the section can read something like "Sessions believes that gays are not entitled to special rights and that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Therefore, he opposes same-sex marriage and gay rights legislation, earning a zero rating..." Ultimately, I see that your problem with "gay rights legislation" is that it can be seen as approaching the issue from the gay-rights side. What I think you don't see is that "legislation supported by gay rights activists" just flips the perspective without curing the NPOV problem. Of the two, the existing one is the more neutral and the one that is actually accurate—as I said, it is unlikely he opposes the legislation because of the gay rights groups' involvement. Anyway, I hope you do decide to look for an affirmative statement of Sessions's views and in any event agree with me that after my edits the article is at least less attacking than it was. -Rrius (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

John Kyl

I reverted your 'contribution' as claiming all U.S. Senators tell outright, intentional lies on the Senate floor is an insult to the entire government and country. Kyl didn't even have the decency to retract it, just claimed it wasn't intended to be believed. A statement on the Senate floor! That is a disgraceful act, and it will not be covered up by someone such as yourself as 'ordinary behavior'. Congress has standards, whether or not you think they're laughable. I fully expect he will be formally censored for his action, be required to apologize to the Senate as a whole, and be removed from his position as Majority Whip for bringing the Party and Senate into disrepute. As well he should. For you to trivialize this as 'typical behavior' is appalling. there is no call for you to ridicule this country and government. If you despise it so much, there are plenty of other articles you can edit instead. You could start with sports figures who lie about taking steroids. Flatterworld (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Being new, you may not be aware that 3 reverts within 24 hours is grounds for blocking. If you really believe this is 'fluff', then you need to take it to the Jon Kyl Talk page. To help you out, as you're supposedly a newbie, I started the section for you. We don't whitewash articles here, certainly not for purposely lying on the Senate floor. Flatterworld (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Enough of the condescension. If you'd to turn this entire page into a political free-for-all, we can do that. I'm not protecting him. But this is STANDARD discussion on the Senate floor. Why do I say that? Because I worked there for a long, long time as both an attorney and speechwriter. I can point out a knowing factual error in nearly every speech of substance given. It is utterly and completely dismaying and disgusting what goes on with politicians, but what you've selectively dug up here is, I'm sorry to have to insist, a complete yawner. His spokesman's explanation is simple: 90% isn't a #, it's a general statement as in "I 99% agree with you." I don't know how to convince you of the completely banal nature of this "controversy' except by vandalizing a bunch of other Senators' wiki pages along the same lines. And really, is that a good use of time? If you look at my general edits, you'll see I'm a very good faith contributor. I stick to facts and I work hard to prevent precisely this kind of tracking into side issues. It's a wiki page for a politician, not a tit-for-tat on every single speech he makes. I mean, wow, if you think this is in any way rare... How I wish you were right. HenryBrooksAdams (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

King & Spalding

When adding content to articles please stick to what the sources say, rather than add your personal interpretation. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation was accurate, but I provided another cite. HenryBrooksAdams (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia's three-revert rule and discuss your proposed addition at the article's talk page. Thanks, AV3000 (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is outrageous. I have provided multiple cites demonstrating this point and there is a POV attack on this issue. This is a completely BANAL point these sources are making. I can provide cite after cite after cite. And what the hell on the 3-revert? You clowns are reverting MY WORK that has been fully cited! I am going to provide a whole series of cites now to demonstrate that this is a very common point of discussion within the legal community. The fact that you guys, who clearly have a POV problem with this being mentioned, are actually fighting such a simple point is an amazing indictment of this forum. HenryBrooksAdams (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Census data

It's standard for all communities. Until more is written about Vista, it may overwhelm the article, so perhaps you can add more about other aspects of Vista. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)