User talk:Rasax

Rasax will be taking some time off to recover from a lumbar puncture and fluoroscopy but will return next week when the nausea and headaches have subsided. Cheers. Rasax 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Rasax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- ElBenevolente 01:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gonzalez

Hi, you have a lot to say about Matt Gonzalez. Obviously you feel pretty strongly about the subject. As someone who dropped in after the article was listed at Peer Review, I would like to let you know I have no strong vested interest other than trying for NPOV. While I can understand you must be frustrated due to an ongoing conflict you are having with other editors of that article, if I can offer an unsolicited suggestion, it would be assume good faith. Let's try to make the article better.

Your extensive comments might take some time to answer, but for openers, there's this recurring issue of his father's work. I happen to think it is relevant in a biographical article to provide some context about someone's childhood or upbringing, and think it is relevant what his parents did for a living. We have two sources here, the Chronicle article asserting the guy worked for a tobacco company in a senior role, and MG's assertion that his dad sold cigarettes out of the trunk of his car. Is it possible that they are both true? Kaisershatner 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note. I have been unable to corroborate the Chronicle's claim using Google, so I understand the possibility that they got it wrong either accidentally or purposefully. I can't find any evidence that there was outrage by the Gonzalez campaign about this libelous smear, though, which would have been justified if this was an outright lie. And in the video link to the Gonzalez interview, he doesn't actually contradict the tobacco claim, he just changes the subject a little bit and describes his own view of what his father did. This leaves open in my mind the possibility that the claim is true and Gonzalez had his own reasons for wanting to de-emphasize this part of his family life. Since we can't definitively establish the objective truth (and for sure his father either was or wasn't a tobacco exec), I think we should state objectively that the SFC said what it said, and Gonzalez described his father as he did. That's what the article said the last time I checked. I further understand that some of the other editors there have their own POV and have concluded it is prejudicial to qualify the SFC statement with "the newspaper claimed" etc. but maybe that's not a terrible idea until this can be proven either way. I think we can take these one by one on the talk page, ok? And thanks again for your note. Honestly, although I am personally pretty conservative politically I do believe what I quote on my user page. There's only one set of facts. Kaisershatner 17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I think we have a consensus on the SF Chronicle/tobacco thing, and you're pushing at an open door, so to speak. People have biases, different viewpoints, etc. It doesn't matter. The article sticks to objective facts on this point, period. Can we address a different problem? Kaisershatner 20:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I could make another suggestion, it would be to avoid suggesting other users go and read a certain policy. It's tantamount to saying "You are ignorant of this policy," and for that reason fails to assume good faith and also is inflammatory. Even if you suspect the other editors are not familiar with a policy, you can achieve the same thing by simply citing the policy and explaining why you think an edit conflicts with it. That's something you do elsewhere on the talk page of MG, and I think it's more effective. However, your almost point-by-point attempt to refute the article might be misinterpreted as pushing a particular POV. It seems as if you are sympathetic to MG, which is fine, but consider "writing for the opposition" for a while. Is there nothing he's done that you think is questionable? Are there no criticisms of his work and service that you think might have truth to them? Kaisershatner 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up?

Just checking in. What's up girlfriend? Griot (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gonzalez

Archive

What's Up?