Talk:Gilberton, Pennsylvania

message: The section about the Gilberton police chief has been targeted for section blanking by vandals several times. The section is sourced appropriately and the police chief's videos made national news — so the section should not be removed without discussion. If you have suggestions, please make them here.  Please don't remove this section without discussing. Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making the article a political stump, sorry, I am at this time TOTALLY uninvolved with this article.Coal town guy (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it is noteworthy when the police chief of a municipality, whose pay comes from taxpayers, seems to dismiss as worthless an entire group of his constituency. Even if this wasn't national news, it would still be worth adding to the Gilberton article. Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think thats swell. I think, we should muckrake every municipality documented here, that way, the world knows its all about politics and not facts. NOT the role for an encyclopedia IMO. The quote is accurate, I understand. Thank you for the reply. I am at this time totally UNinvolved on the talk page or the article or the editing of said items.Coal town guy (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: [EC] Wikipedia policy declares that Wikipedia is not a platform for Scandal mongering. "Scandal mongering" is a good description of the content in question. The content in question was, indeed, published in national media outlets, but not everything that gets reported in the news is worthwhile content for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, there may be WP:BLP issues with this content. --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more, Orlady.  BTW, to the original poster in this thread, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's editing cycle.  You will find it at WP:BRD.  It goes like this.  One editor makes a bold addition, another editor reverts it, then they discuss it at the talk page.  Nowhere does it say you restore your perffered version then you discuss it.  Whomever made the edit that you blamed on Coal Town Guy was absolutely correct.  You were out of policy to restore it without discussion, which as you can see here has occured and consensus is leaning strongly to not have it in.  Blogs are the place for this kind of content, not here.  Oh, and it is not vandalism to remove content unless the intent is to damage the encyclopedia.  That is not the case here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the section today because it was scandal mongering per WP:SOAP. I know that policy because, I believe that while the content and quote were correct, it was NOT and I repeat NOT done in the spirit or sense of educating anyone. I also know that policy because, ALL editors help one another, this is salty stuff, and can be done in an encyclopedic fashion. As to my own political views, or preferences, they do NOT belong here. Its not easy, but again, its part of being a better editor. There are also ways to quote and paraphrase which can bring the import of said statements to light. Hence, enjoining to form a consensus in this instance was critical. I profess to NOT be perfect, and I have indeed screwed the pooch on a few moments certainly, BUT I also promised to be a better editor., thats not so easy at timesCoal town guy (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policy determines what can and cannot be published here. The policy has been explained to you. If you want to publish this content on the Internet, I suggest that you find some other website that will accept it, because it's not going to be published here. --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Wow.  Again, voicing support of Orlady.  It appears you have no consensus to add any of this.  There are numerous places on the internet where you can get a webpage at little to no cost.  You'll find them thataway=====>  Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh its much better on their talk page....I must concur with Orlady and Gtwfan52 as well. My intention was simple, no soap boxing for a POV that is not in any manner used to improve an articleCoal town guy (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I am going to assume you are the IP editor whose comments were redacted above, since you are using the exact same language as he did.  Your comments will also be redacted for soapboxing, just as soon as I finish writing this.  Confine your comments to the edits themselves, not the political implications you see arising from them.  No-one here cares.  If you want to reach an audience that does, start a blog.  None NONE of the sources say anything remotely like what you are stating here.  The BND and the SFGATE sources are dead.  As you were told ad nauseum above, this not a newspaper.  Unless sources tell us that the event will have far-reaching consequences beyond the local community, we do not cover things like this.  Also, we try to report from an historical perspective.  This story is unfolding, and we do not know what the outcome will be.  The sources say it will be dealt with in an upcoming city council meeting.  The info you have in the article at this time is well sourced and fairly neutral, but this story, which does not appear to have any far reaching consequences beyond the town, is still unfolding.  So, per the consensus formed above, I will be removing it again.  After the city council meeting, if you want to come back here and discuss the merits of the edits without all the political rhetoric, there might be a place for it in a controversy section.  We need to adopt a wait and see attitude here.  This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  An article about a community is in no way for the community.  It is to accurately inform the world about the community. Accuracy is not fostered by haste.  Wikipedia has no deadline.  I have already approached the admins here about your soapboxing.  It will not be tolerated.  If you return, return with an attitude of working with the other editors here to form a consensus that serves the encyclopedia, not your political agenda. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear - Wikipedia has an entire essay on the "scandalmongering", as we're calling it here: Wikipedia:Coatrack. I suggest anyone who wants to add the material ought to read that essay outright before opining further. Especially as we are talking about a) a living person, and b) an argument (the Wikipedia page) about an argument (the police chief's rant) about an argument (the tea party) about an argument (politics in general). The fact that this was even reported beyond the borders of Pennsylvania is a textbook example of the yellow journalism in the modern US media. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this on your page, Magog. Noted. That said, Shit happens. And when it does happen, it will be newsworthy. Sweetfreek (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilberton police chief 

message: I have removed this again since there doesn't seem to be any consensus to include it. If consensus is to include this material, then it can be readded. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Malerooster.  Consensus is not always indicated by actual verbiage on a talk page.  Sometimes, a version is finally put in the article that people can live with and the discussion just stops.  That is what happened here.  My name has changed, but I am "Gtwfan52" above.  The version that people were at odds with included a bunch of doom and gloom POV about how the police chief's actions were going to lead to a civil war.  If you see above, I had asked that we hold off until the city reached a decision on what to do about the chief.  After they fired him, I put up the version you redacted; another editor added to it a few weeks later and a third editor edited it to what it was.  I am just going to revert your revert, and again we will see if anyone has an objection. Since you didn't express an opinion and were not originally a participant in the discussion, I hope that this is fine with you.  I see no reason to reinvent the wheel here. John from Idegon (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking at what we wrote here again, I see the referencing is not the best.  If you have a better idea, feel free to add or delete from the current version.  This was all over the media and there are tons of stuff out there on it.  Of course we do not have a historical perspective on it, but it think that this whole mess will be part of the town's history forever.  Of course, your mileage may vary. John from Idegon (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. I removed it for now. If others want to chime in and add it back, then they can discuss that here. Feel free to get others to imput as long as its down neutrally. Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: see above.--Malerooster (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilberton police chief Redux 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gilberton, Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified