User talk:Skalpel

Chris Coons[edit]

The article “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.”^[1] is not trival. It has been all over the news and blogs recently. As Coons is not too famous, it is one of his defining facts in the public's eye.

The buzz is in right-wing media; therefore, it's political, partisan and not biographical. A biography is a factual account of the major events of a person's life. Given that scale, an article written as an undergrad is trivial. Also given that Coons is hardly a Marxist, it isn't seminal either. A false impression is being created with “Making of a Bearded Marxist”. The title was satirical. If the “Bearded Marxist” attack ads are successful, I guess we'll have to add it after the election!

The above unsigned comment is by IP poster: 71.62.148.66, I believe. My own comment is to formally ask if you are posting under any other Wikipedia accounts or IP addresses? Thank you. Fell Gleaming ^talk 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting as Skalpel and, by accidentally not logging in, 71.204.200.114.

Thanks. As a new user, you may not be aware of the WP:3RR policy that prohibits editors from more than three reversion per day (and in some cases less than that, where a long standing dispute pattern exists). If you see libelous material in the Coons article that is clearly unsourced, you should remove it regardless of 3RR, but in other cases you should adhere to policy.

Also, remember that for a politician, what's notable in their life is what people are talking about in regards to them. Take a look at the article on Coon's opponent, Christine O'Donnell, and you will see far more trivial matters addressed in far more excruciating detail. Regards. Fell Gleaming ^talk 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coons' switching parties is certainly important in his biography, which provides the lead in for the college article. However, the problem of partisan attack and false impressions remains. Do you have a link for the full text of his article? It is disturbing to me that only select quotes have appeared and that a read of the entire article will a lot less radical than is being suggested. Skalpel (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link is in the article (unless someone has removed it since I left the page). Regards. Fell Gleaming ^talk 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also user PlShark83? Fell Gleaming ^talk 17:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. Skalpel (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

I've unblocked your account. My apologies on making the error. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly unblock my IP as well:71.204.200.114. Thanks. Skalpel (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And my apologies as well for the unfounded assumption. Fell Gleaming ^talk 12:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #2086538 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)}

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36726.html

[1] ttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36726.html

[1]