Talk:Patrick Morrisey

Regarding the NPOV Tag

This article appears to use "political spin" in making opinion type conclusions to some of the sourced material cited on the page. Other articles on Wikipedia covering attorneys general seem to not have such bias. I invite editors to review this page with me to adjust the page pursuant to Wikipedia's a neutral point of view policy.

Some examples of good wikipedia pages covering attorneys general:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Conway_(politician)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_DeWine
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Herring
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_E._Frosh

Redrosetta (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Cases not involving Morrisey

An editor has repeatedly attempted to insert legal cases into this article which do not involve Morrisey. For example, this edit, about the Cutler case, and this one which also includes Pam Geller in Texas(?). I've removed the off-topic content, but the same editor appears intent on cut & pasting unrelated information into biographies, here and elsewhere. I've verified that the content already exists in a more appropriate and relevant article before removing it from this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• And what is the reasoning behind this edit? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patrick Morrisey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160216041144/http://www.statejournal.com/story/patrick-morrisey-announces-steering-committee-meeting to http://www.statejournal.com/story/patrick-morrisey-announces-steering-committee-meeting

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

EPA lawsuits section

@NuclearWizard: I think your edit here was along the right lines. There is a lot of content here of unclear relevance, and that is written with legal jargon, making it not particularly helpful to the lay reader. Maybe we can go through the lawsuits section piece by piece and remove content that lacks good sourcing? I'm sure there's more content to be added here, too, and it seems the EPA stuff hasn't seen much updating since it was added a few years ago. Marquardtika (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Marquadtika and Kim9988: I agree. It's got undue weight (like the Clean Power Plan case having five paragraphs) and come to think of it, there's some WP:BLP violations in there--tons of deadlinks, but many (particularly EPA.gov links) actually have notices saying it was moved elsewhere. Some are also password-protected and so on. Nuke (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose reinstating this edit? If no one is willing to go to bat for that content, I think it should be removed. Marquardtika (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

42Squire (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC) From the Court of Appeals opinion Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, 829 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2016) the argument EPA cannot veto the Corps permit would be without merit. My edit just refers to the fact the US Supreme Court denial of certiorari does not indicate their opinion on the argument. If there is support the US Supreme Court found no merit that would be welcome.

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Patrick Morrisey 2018 January 24.jpg (discussion)
• Patrick Morrisey Official Campaign Portrait (cropped 3).jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)