Talk:Jim Gerlach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Question[edit]

Who keeps changing this entry to Lois Murphy?

Don't know - someone who's very confused (and I'm a Murphy supporter). Changing it back. jesup 04:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - district shape[edit]

The bit about the district being shaped for Gerlach to win may be true, but needs a citation or something.

  • The first external link is a citation for that. jesup 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

|Partisan claims removed| --66.218.18.121 03:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing partisan edit. As per Using Talk pages, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and talk pages are not for partisan point-making (in any direction) - they're for discussion of the content of the main page. jesup 04:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

partisan edits[edit]

71.225.69.95 has made and now re-made partisan edits. Also, the list of endorsements he's been adding is cut-and-pasted from Gerlach's campaign website, and so is also a copyright violation. A survey of other active politician wiki pages show that lists of endorsements are generally not considered appropriate for biography pages. (See Ed Rendell Lynn Swann, etc.) There are also issues with his/her current edits technically (lost link to notable races). Bio pages need to be fact-based, and avoid becoming campaign website stand-ins. jesup 11:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some additional comments: I suspect the user making these edits is a newcomer to Wikipedia and NPOV/etc; the only older edit from that IP was probably from someone who was handed that address in the past by DHCP. After their first edit, I tried to incorporate as much as possible of their edit while still keeping to NPOV and normal bio guidelines, and I'm open to properly sourced and written changes (though I believe a list of all endorsements is probably not appropriate, that doesn't mean all ways of discussing endorsements are inappropriate). After their botched attempt to undo my edits, I just reverted it. jesup 13:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anonuser has redone part of their edit (though not the copyvio portion of it). They have not answered the objections above here or on their talk page. I'm considering reverting their edit again, but I wish to avoid an edit war on this. I should note that the text on Delay in question is factual and appropriately referenced, has been here without change for many months, and includes Gerlach's response to the issue (also referenced). In response to their first edit, when reverting it I did try to retain what I could, and moved this into a subheading on fundraising along with the fundraising summary link. jesup 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating Partisan entry re: fundraising[edit]

Jessup keeps adding a Partisan statement about Fundraising which criticizes James Gerlach’s fundraising. This statement is lifted straight from the television add of his opponent in the 2006 Congressional race. As such it is partisan and contrary to Wikipedia’s goal of keeping such bio pages as neutral and unbiased as possible.

First, you should sign your messages on Talk pages with four tilde's (look down and you'll see "Sign your name"). Thanks for finally discussing the issue (after at least 3 requests), though I notice you reverted the page again.

I also notice you have not made any edit summaries on any of your edits of the page; when editing a page (and especially when reverting a page) you are supposed to comment on your edit. Disputed edits/reverts should be discussed here (on the talk page).

You've removed the fundraising/DeLay information 4 times without comment in the last 2 days. Along the way, in the first three reverts you apparently violated the Three-Revert Rule, and the other edits you added twice were Copyright Violations (cut and pasted from Gerlach's campaign page) and also (as mentioned above) probably not appropriate or normal for a politician's bio page.

As for the information you've removed 4 times: that information on DeLay and ARMPAC has been here since last December; the only significant change is that Gerlach's response (that he'd return it if DeLay is convicted) was added and cited. Note that the money was actually from ARMPAC, not DeLay himself, and ARMPAC this summer paid a large fine over the issue and disbanded. The information was certainly not taken from any ad; it long predates the ad currently being run. It's confirmed, cited, verifiable information, with statements on the issue from both sides, presented in an NPOV manner. There's no mention of his giving money to DeLay's defense fund, though that would be a reasonable possibility here (which I considered), nor that most other active ARMPAC recipients have returned the money.

I monitor this page, and if you look back on my editing record, I try to avoid partisan edits from either side (and have reverted pro-Murphy partisan edits on several occasions).

I suggest reading more on Wikipedia editing policies and experiment more and see how disputes are handled.

At this point, I'm leaning to re-add the DeLay text tomorrow and if need be call in dispute resolution. Lastly, it's "Jesup".  :-) --- jesup 01:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after a cooling-off time, re-added the Fundraising section. If you want to remove it, please justify it here first (perhaps in a new 'Fundraising' section). If it's deleted without discussion for a 5th time, I plan to start Dispute Resolution. A better choice if people feel it's too controversial would be to create a campaign page, similar to PA-7 (Pennsylvania 7th congressional district election, 2006). That might be a good idea anyways.

Jesup stop your Partisan entries[edit]

Jesup should know that the Fundraising entry is pure partisan rhetoric that is taken straight from the attack ads of Congressman Gerlach's opponent. I suspect that Jesup is someone working for Lois Murphy's campaign. There is no other reasonable explanation for why Jesup is so adamant about including negative attack ad info on what is supposed to be a neutral non-partisan page. Hopefully, Jesup will stop engaging in such attacks and leave the Gerlach Bio Page be.

Dan

As mentioned before, you can sign your edits with four tildes (~). The first part of "Fundraising" was a link to a non-partisan political financial reporting site. The statement about sources is true, though I'd entertain removing it if you were to discuss the issue. The second part (if you read the discussion above) is not taken from any ad. As the history here shows, the text about DeLay predates any ads about the subject by at least six or seven months. It's factual, includes the response, with citations, and has 'baked' here for close to 10 months.
If you read the information above, you will see that I disclosed months ago (when deleting pro-Murphy vandalism) that I'm a supporter of Murphy. I monitor and occasionally work to expand both the Murphy page and this page, and I try to do so in a NPOV manner. I've deleted vandalism, biased (anti-Gerlach and pro-Gerlach) information here on multiple occasions.
I do think it may make sense to create a 6th-District Campaign race for information like this, though the fact that he took money from DeLay's PAC extends back to his first federal race, and he was one of the largest recipients, and one of the few not to return/donate it.
I asked multiple times for you to discuss things here before repeating your deletes, and you have for the 5th time deleted it without discussion first. I'm going to ask for dispute resolution to try to resolve this. jesup 02:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 71.225.68.43 and 71.225.69.95 (aka 'Dan') are apparently the same user given their comments (Comcast DHCP address). jesup 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesup False Copyright Claim[edit]

Jesup has falsely accused me twice of a copyright violation. According to Jesup, I took a statement concerning endorsements from a Gerlach Webpage and added it to the Gerlach Wikipedia Bio. Jesup has no basis for this erroneous claim. The statement in question was: "Numerous fire fighter, law enforcement, humanitarian and labor organizations have endorsed Congressman Jime Gerlach in 2006. Among the groups that have publicly announced their support for Jim Gerlach are: ....[names of various labor groups, etc.]." This statement is my own work product and I defy Jesup to find that statement on any Gerlach Webpage.

In addition to making up copyright violation claims, Jesup also feigns false piety by claiming that endorsements have no place on a Bio page because, Bio pages are supposed to be non-partisan and neutral. Jesup, however, has no problem repeatedly adding a negative statement on the Gerlach Bio Page concerning Fundraising. This Fundraising statement is based on a claim that appears in attack ads aired by Congressman Gerlach's opponent.

I fail to see how listing the names of groups that have come out and publicly endorsed a candidate can be deemed partian and inappropriate for a Bio page, but making a negative statement about one of the candidate's fundraising sources is not. Jesup can't have it both ways.

So if Jesup truly seeks to achieve the spirit of non-partisan objectivity on this Bio Page, then Jesup should leave out the partisan fundraising statements.

Dan

Dan
The copyvio portion of your edit was the cut-and-pasted list of groups, not the statement that preceded it. I compared it to the list on Gerlach's campaign page, and it was identical to Gerlach's endorsement list (including the order and wording). Note: since then several more endorsements have been added. If you didn't cut-and-paste it, I'm sorry, but it seems unlikely the exact wording and order would occur otherwise. (Where did you get the list from if not there?)
Before deleting the list of endorsements, I surveyed other politician's bio pages; I couldn't find any that list endorsements, even far more extensive and higher profile. That isn't to say they might not exist, but they probably don't belong in a bio. You could make an argument for including them (for both sides) on a Campaign page, which I'm considering creating (similar to how one was created for the 7th district (Weldon-Sestak)).
The second time I deleted it you had messed up the page (broken formatting, etc), and you had refused (or didn't know how to) discuss the issue. jesup 02:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Hi!

I hail from WP:3O. I noticed you're having a bit of a dispute.

I took a look at the article history and the section in question (fundraising), which was removed again today. The fundraising section appears to be well-sourced and is about a notable event in Mr. Gerlach's 2006 campaign. Therefore, I would point Dan to several policies:

  • WP:NPOV - all sides of an issue or person must be described in relevant articles, even if they're unflattering: hence the reason Mel Gibson's article has a section about his drunk driving.
  • WP:V - everything in an article must be verifiable by WP:RS. If a section is verifiable and relevant as well as important to the article, it should not be removed. This constitutes vandalism and "POV-pushing."

If you believe that the sources used in the fundraising section of the article are not reliable, please leave me a message here or on my talk page and I'll take a closer look. My first and second impressions, however, are that they are in fact reliable. If they are not (as a neutral third party, I will investigate any concerns), they can be replaced by more reliable sources. In this case, the task of finding more reliable sources will be Jesup's responsibility. Srose (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am trying very hard to be considerate to Dan, who is a new editor here it appears. I will be restoring the fundraising section for now. Dan, if you still object, please discuss this with Srose(talk) and if you think there's still a case for removal, rewording or refining the citations, please make it here and we'll discuss it. I may still look to create a 6th District Campaign page, in which case it would move there. jesup 18:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessup - I would encourage you to create an election article. See Category:United States House of Representatives elections by state for a list of others, you may want to pick a good one as a template. More on topic (re: PAC contributions), what I, as a reader, would want to know is this: what does the assertion that The majority (53%) of Gerlach's fundraising has come from PACs mean? Is that a lot, or a little? What proportion does his opponent have? I.e., context. (In fact, one might argue that without context, it is POV, despite been factual). Good luck. -- Sholom 18:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably look at the 7th, thanks. As for PACs, you have a good point - more context would help. (Note that there is some context already, in that the DeLay thing is also related to PACs, but that's not strong enough a connection). I edited it to provide a bit more context and a neutralizing comment on incumbents (for which I need to dig up a reference (I've seen it before), which may well also be on opensecrets). (Note how Sholom presented an issue of possible POV here and got it addressed.) jesup 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesup: Get Thee to a Wikipedia Campaign Page[edit]

Your Fundraising Section is really going too far in violating the neutrality requirements of what is supposed to be an unbiased, non-partisan Bio Page. I have tried to get you to keep this Murphy campaign rhetoric off this page for 2 weeks now, but for some reason you refuse to do so.

You would have had a far stronger argument had you in fact started by saying that you thought it was biased and given reasons, as opposed to deleting the information 5 times in a row (including a three-revert violation). And now a 6th deletion. jesup 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that perhaps you should place this info on a Lois Murphy Wikipedia campaign page. I am in complete agreement with that notion and wish you would go ahead and do so and leave this Bio Page alone, because your Fundraising Section is partisan on several levels:

I have not suggested creating a "Lois Murphy Campaign page". I have suggested creating a 6th District Campaign page. jesup 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) False Information: You claim that Gerlach received $30,000 from ARMPAC for the 2006 Election. If you www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?id=PA06&cycle=2006 you will see that he received $10,000 not $30,000 from ARMPAC.

I wasn't (I think) the one added the 2006 Election heading over that; I know for sure it wasn't there when the original text was added. The text did (does?) say "In his campaigns", meaning in multiple campaigns. He has taken $10000 for 2006, $10000 for 2004, and $10000 for (I think) 2002. That sentence long predated the 2006 Campaign heading; it could be modified to break out the amounts. The money is an issue in the 2006 campaign. jesup 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Opposing Party Campaign Rhetoric: You include a sentence stating that “Lois Murphy and other Democrats have called on Gerlach to return the money.” Murphy’s demand that the money be returned is a campaign stunt for her attack ads. Including Murphy’s demand in the Bio Page of her opponent constitutes injecting her campaign rhetoric into what is supposed to be a nonpartisan Bio.

The sentence is factually true; in fact, modifying it to remove the mention of Murphy or Democrats would be deceptive and incorrectly indicate that the calls for return of the money were coming from non-partisan sources. As the 3rd Opinion here indicated, it's supported by WP:RS (Reliable Sources) and is relevant. jesup 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Relevance: James Gerlach has raised $2,865,469 for his 2006 Race. This money comes from multiple sources. Yet, for some reason, you feel it necessary to place an entire section in Gerlach’s Bio about a single $10,000 contribution. This contribution equates to ONE THIRD OF 1% of what Gerlach has raised. How is such a miniscule contribution relevant information? Its not. The only reason why you would include it is to try to tarnish Jim Gerlach

It's relevant because it's an issue in the campaign. It was sufficiently newsworthy that it was mentioned in multiple news sources and major-city newspapers after DeLay was indicted. This is supported by the fact that Gerlach's response merited mention in newspapers. That pretty much covers the requirement for it to be a "noteworthy" fact. I surveyed all the other ARMPAC recipients who have wikipedia pages (that I could find). Roughly 80% of them mention the ARMPAC donation, often in more detail, even if there is a campaign page for their next race. jesup 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(4) False Perceptions: Your Fundraising Statement creates the false perception that: (a) Jim Gerlach is somehow involved in the charges that have been leveled against Tom Delay; (b) that Jim Gerlach is somehow required to return the contribution from ARMPAC; and, (c) that Jim Gerlach violated the law by receiving the ARMPAC contribution.

The money came from a PAC that apparently obtained its money through illegal donations, and a number of people associated with it have been indicted and/or pled guilty of money laundering. That severely taints any money received. Gerlach has not broken the law (unless he knew the money was obtained illegally, and there's no indication he did), but the "normal" thing to do is to return/donate it. He recognizes that apparently, in that he said he'd return it if DeLay was found guilty, which also validates this as an issue. However, the money did not come from DeLay directly - it came from his PAC, which in response to the investigation paid a 6-figure fine and disbanded. Whether DeLay himself conspired to launder the money or whether subordinates did it on their own is a separate issue. jesup 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent addition of a section comparing the percentage of PAC contributions received by Gerlach and Murphy is only further partisan electioneering on your part.

With only 3 weeks until the Election, I ask that you please stop adding this Partisan nonsense to Congressman Gerlach’s Bio Page.

If you want it to appear on Wikipedia, then create a campaign page for Lois Murphy and put it there.

If you believe the correct thing is to create a biased campaign page, you really don't understand WP:NPOV. Biased POV pages (in any direction) are what websites are for, not Wikipedia. jesup 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesup, so you finally admit that the Fundraising Entry is Biased and does not belong on Wikipedia. Since we appear to be in agreement, I ask that you stop adding it to the Gerlach Bio Page.

Thanks

Dan

Dan

Did you discuss this issue with Srose?
I see you reverted the text for the 6th time, in opposition of the WP:3O opinion.
In any case, it probably does make sense to create a district campaign page like the 7th has, as I'd said. I'm working on it.
I do suggest you check out various other politician's wiki pages though. Check out DeLay's. Or Mike DeWine's. Or Geoff Davis (another ARMPAC recipient). Politician bios are not criticism-free zones; politics makes that impossible. Criticism is often presented, though (as here) it often includes their side of the story. I again note that roughly 80% of ARMPAC recipient bios note calls from Democrats for them to return/donate the money. jesup 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jesup: Doesn't it strike you a bit odd that 80% of all ARMPAC recipient Bios contain statements from Democrats calling for them to return/donate the money? This indicates a concerted Partisan effort on the part of the Democrats to inject their campaign rhetoric into the Bio pages of their Congressional opponents. As for your "Bios are not criticism-free" argument, I take it you would have no problem with someone adding a Section to the Lois Murphy Bio Page entitled "Positions on Issues", along with a statement saying that "Gerlach and many Republicans have criticized Murphy for her opposition to a Bill that included funding to purchase Body Armor for our troops." I would not include such a Section in her Bio because I at least can recognize when something is partisan and thus not appropriate for inclusion in a Bio Page. You, however, are somehow incapable of understanding this.

Dan

Sigh. My pointing it out was not to show there's some deep, democratic conspiracy to put things on Wiki bios. My point was:
a) Calls to return the money have been made (by Democrats) in most if not all races affected.
b) Since there are MANY editors overseeing those pages, the assumption is that the editors feel it is noteworthy and properly sourced (like this page until you started removing it repeatedly). I should note that like this page, many have some sort of response to the request. Also, most have had those entries since shortly after DeLay was indicted.
c) Criticism is ok on all politician bio pages, including Murphy's, but it must be properly sourced and NPOV. Including that on the Lois Murphy page would be reasonable, but it would need to be NPOV, and thus would have to include an objective analysis of the issue and/or response. In this case, the body armor ad by the NRCC was pulled by Comcast for being deceptive; Murphy was criticising Gerlach for voting for a bill that authorized drilling in ANWR after he had said he would protect it.
d) If you think this page is critical of Gerlach, go read Curt Weldon's bio, or Tom DeLay's, or most other congresspeople.
jesup 06:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Dan. From what I can gather, the only change you seem to want is the specification that yes, Gerlach has received $30,000, but only $10,000 of that is in this campaign. Noteworthy criticism has its place on the articles of any living person, whether it be Stephen King, George Bush or Saddam Hussein. If you can include NPOV, properly sourced criticism in Murphy's article, you are encouraged to do so. There is no conspiracy on Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is edited by hundreds of thousands of people from countries as diverse as Japan, Estonia, the US and Iraq. It'd be pretty hard to get all of those people to agree to make a certain party look horrible. I again invite you to leave a message on my talk page if I can be of further service. Srose (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srose: You seem to ignore my other points, beyond the fact that the sum was $10k v. $30k. We don't even need to discuss your statement that "note worthy criticism has its place on articles" because singling out a contribution that represents ONE THIRD OF ONE PERCENT of a candidiate's campaign funding is focusing on something that is not noteworthy at all. The only reason why the Democrats keep trying to highlight that insignificant fundraising source is to try to inject inappropriate partisan campaign rhetoric into what is supposed to be an impartial Bio page.

Dan

I must correct you, Dan. If Lois Murphy is making a public issue out of the $10,000, as she quite clearly is, it is a noteworthy issue. As Jesup has told you multiple times, this $10,000 is a big issue in the campaign and has been noted by major news networks. Additionally, I did in fact read through all of your messages. Some of them are rather off-base. Accusing Jesup of political motives is not helpful in this debate. Telling Jesup to create a biased article for his information is completely against Wikipedia policy. Additionally, it doesn't matter if it's 2 weeks until election time: Wikipedia presents a balanced picture of every candidate, which includes the positive and the negative. That is why many politicians have edited their entries or their friends' entries on this encyclopedia. It doesn't work: we have policy in place to preserve neutrality. I realize that you do not like the negative aspects of Jim's biography. However, they must be there, if this is to be a fair and balanced article. I will reiterate: the $10,000 scandal attracted considerable press attention. Therefore, it is noteworthy.
I would also like to point out that you need to sign your name with four tildes (~ is a tilde) rather than signing your first name. That way, things are timestamped and editors do not have to go through the article history to see when you made a comment. If you want to use your name as your signature, please get an account (click on the words Log in/Register in the top right corner of this screen).
If you cannot work to a resolution or disagree with my outside opinion, you must progress to the next stage of dispute resolution: either the mediation cabal or a Request for Comment. Srose (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Campaign page created[edit]

As you can see, the campaign page has been created (I was getting sleepy by the end, and John Broughton has added some helpful edits, both here and on the Murphy page). I'll be continuing to update stuff here in the aftermath of the split. Note that there will still be a 2006 Campaign heading and a brief description of the campaign there. I will probably re-add the information on DeLay, but probably not under the 2006 Campaign section - I'll probably create a separate section (as it is in many but not all other ARMPAC beneficiaries). jesup 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well?[edit]

Did he win? Last I looked it was extremely close. --71.224.19.29 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Pennsylvania 6th Congressional District election, 2006 jesup 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early career[edit]

I dispute the factual basis of Gerlach's early career because I interned for him back in 1992 while I was in high school, and I distinctly remember that he worked for Lamb, Windle, McErlane in West Chester, Pa., prior to his 1990 election against fmr. State Rep. Sam Morris.--FidesetRatio 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, find a WP:RS that states so and make the edit. You could just make the edit if you're pretty sure it's independently verifiable, but if challenged you'll need to back it up. Note that the current early career isn't <ref>ed anyways. jesup 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Daily Local News article that I found on microfilm in the library. It's so old that it's not on the Internet. How should I cite it?--FidesetRatio 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; just cite it with <ref>Foo T. Bar, [[Daily Local News]], April 1, 2010,</ref>. There are actually better ways to cite paper articles with <cite>, but I don't know them off-the-cuff. jesup 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - include the article title as well, and source (microfilm). jesup 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wouldn't mind, I have the citation posted on the main page, could you reformat the Mike Rellahan article for me so it is Wikified.

Thanks.--FidesetRatio 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jim Gerlach I knew 15 years ago was a staunch environmentalist whose thinking impressed upon my 17-year-old brain. His stance for preserving open space in Chester County is under-recognized now that he's a congressman. I knew him better when he was a state legislator, but I really haven't talked to him much in several years.--FidesetRatio 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the televised debate, Lois Murphy praised his work in the PA Senate on Open Space; one of the few questions where they did (of course, most questions were oriented at things that were campaign issues). Of course, no one saw it... jesup 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for Jim Gerlach's work Pennsylvania municipalities would have a much harder time preserving open space because his work made it easier for townships to work together. I'm not saying this as a partisan, but as someone who works closely with Chester County municipalities. I have serious differences with my old acquaintance.--FidesetRatio 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerlach's opposition to eminent domain[edit]

The anonymous editor's addition of uncited material about eminent domain in Ardmore clearly had a marginal impact on the election, considering Murphy trounced Gerlach in the Montgomery County portion of the district. Eminent domain in Ardmore had no impact in Chester, Berks or Lehigh counties. Additionally, mentioning that Jim Gerlach loosened his tie at an event is irrelevant. --FidesetRatio 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (you beat me to adding a comment). That issue could end up in there if he's made it a significant position, backed up by WP:RS. As for the election, I haven't seen a WP:RS that said it was a major factor. Eminent domain is an issue in Ardmore from what I know, but I'm don't think it reaches a level for inclusion in a bio. If it was significant in the campaign, it should go there, probably not in the bio, unless he does something significant about it at the federal level (which means more than just introduce a bill). As for tie-loosening... not appropriate, I agree.  :-) jesup 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's about as relevant as including Gerlach's arguing with me over how great the first George Bush was or how the Penguins would beat the Chicago Blackhawks in the 1992 Stanley Cup. LOL--FidesetRatio 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 campaign page name[edit]

Note that John changed the name of the 2006 campaign page to be lower-case to match all the other 2006 campaign pages. So currently the Main article link hits a redirect. jesup 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Page[edit]

Deleted outdated material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.108.129 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No Military Service[edit]

I removed a edit that stated "His biographies show no record of military service." Is his military service, or lack thereof in dispute? If it is, we need a reference. If not, I don't see the purpose of this oddly worded line. It is like saying, "his biographies show no record of spousal abuse", or "his biographies show no record of his conversion to Buddhism". There is no record because the thing didn't happen, and wouldn't necessarily be expected to happen. Npeters22 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jim Gerlach. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Gerlach&oldid=1207394121"