User talk:Billbird2111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

welcome[edit]

Perhaps I did not explain myself well. I posted the standard conflict of interest notice above. You clearly do have a conflict of interest (COI) when you are the communications director for the article's subject. This is a fairly common situation (whether in politics, municipalities, or businesses). Therefore, on Wikipedia what you will generally see are those with a COI posting proposed edits to the talk page of the article. Other editors will then post the edit or revise them to be appropriate. If you are posting edits about the senator, then please provide references from reliable sources per Wikipedia's policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability.
On a personal note, you stated that I'm attacking the senator and you want to stop me. Please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It happens that I think Senator Huff is a nice guy and do not disagree personally with his politics. I had the pleasure of meeting him when I lived in Diamond Bar and he was mayor. I even voted for him. So my removal of your edit was not personal . . . I am just trying to make sure that Wikipedia is neutral and well-sourced. 72Dino (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(( this is very good advice... see also WP:IMAGINE for guidance )) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's very easy. You merely access the web page of the Senate Republican Leader, call his office number, and ask for his Communications Director (which would be me). That's how you confirm it. Will I ever move on to another position? With term limits in California, you can bet on it. But it still doesn't change the fact that I would never once post anything incorrect about Senator Huff or his accomplishments. That is a fireable offense, and I have no wish to experience this. If you look at my history of working in the State Senate, you'll discover that I worked for another Senator, Sam Aanestad, before taking a job with Senator Huff. At one time? I was involved with updating Senator Aanestad's page. At that time? I didn't have NEAR the problem I have now, and encountered a number of Wikipedia editors who were more than helpful. Never once was an entry stricken or changed. But, I will do my best to live within your rules, until you're replaced by another Wikipedia editor, who will bring a host of new rules to deal with. That's life I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.214.110 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(( in order to verify something, wikipedia has higher standards than the press. *they* can call the office, to verify something. *wikipedians* insist that sentences must already be verified beforehand, not by wikipedians, but by somebody in the press, or in academia, or somesuch. Wikipedia isn't a news-source... it's an encyclopedia which records history, as reflected in news-sources. This is a key concept that will help you become enlightened. WP:NPOV is supposed to mean that wikipedia content stays neutral, and the *way* it stays neutral is by reflecting the Reliable Sources, and when possible, stating the truth, too. Make sense? ))
It might help if you identified what specifically was "misinformation". If there is anything outright false or unsourced, you will probably find editors who will want to remove it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


Bill - Just curious about your appeal to other WP editors. There have been at least 10 editors involved in reverting or modifying your promotional editing. Have you come across one editor yet that agrees with your point of view on this matter? That should give you some clue as to how divergent your perspective is. 71.139.157.123 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Eleventh time is the charm! But as Elaquate says, be specific. What things need fixing? What do you propose as replacements, if anything? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Billbird2111 (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111Billbird2111 (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC) You have applied a standard template to the entry for Bob Huff that is applied to no other legislator in the California State Senate or the California State Assembly. You have singled the Senate Republican Leader out for this standard. Why is this standard not uniformly applied to all state legislators? Why can't you answer this question?

Every article on Wikipedia is treated as a separate entity and usually has different people editing it. For example, there's an article for every country in the world and no two are structured identically. If you see issues or conflict of interest editing with other articles, bring them up on those talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You're comparing COUNTRIES to politicians in California? Nice try. Your bias is showing. Billbird2111 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111Billbird2111 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
What bias is that? --NeilN talk to me 03:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
NielN is correct though. Similar articles can because of WP:s nature have differences, and that is not by default a bad thing (of course it can be, then argue why the other way is preferable on WP). This is often refered to as Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
And I'm assuming he's not asking for the page he's most interested in to look like Steve Knight's page. But there do seem to be other completely unsourced bios, such as Jean Fuller, etc. But the existence of other non-sourced bios doesn't mean we should eliminate sourced material. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced bios are an area for improvement, no question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the article's talk page is the appropriate place to bring up an issue with respect to the article, and the issue you raise has already been addressed there. 71.139.157.123 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeated citations[edit]

On a non-content related note, you have changed some of the citations from the consolidated version when repeated citations are used. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and the section on repeated citations. Rather than having the references section fill up with the same citation, the version used in this article, particularly with the Senate site, has included the consolidated approach. Please do not change it. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bill, did you understand what this was about? I can explain the named-refs thing, if you like. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Bob Huff have been reverted.[edit]

Your recent edits to Bob Huff have been reverted. They appear to violate NPOV among other significant policies concerning Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Please do not repeatedly remove sourced material without explanation. Try to find consensus for your changes on the talk page. If you require any assistance learning about the appropriate policies here, please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Elaqueate, it looks like Bill is asking.  :-)   If you'd still like to help out, or at least eyeball my long-winded explanations for correctness, that would be much appreciated. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talkcontribs)

The Powerful Win[edit]

I tried. I failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbird2111 (talkcontribs) 21:36, 29 November 2013‎

You tried to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion, to advance your employer's interests; you failed because Wikipedia's processes are strong enough to prevent it, as edits are watched by a sufficient number of volunteer users interested in maintaining the neutral point of view which is a fundamental policy. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Billbird2111 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111Billbird2111 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC) BS. You have applied a different set of standards to the page for one, solitary politician. That's it. That's all you have done. There is no such thing as a NPOV since you've failed to apply the same sort of criteria for all politicians. That's wrong. You know it's wrong. You cannot justify it.

Bill, now be fair, there is such a thing as NPOV, of course.  :-)   What you mean is, NPOV is unevenly enforced, like the speed limit. That's true! NPOV can be applied at many levels:
  1. the sentence-level,
  2. paragraph-level,
  3. section-level,
  4. article-level,
  5. set-of-related-articles-level,
  6. set-of-one-hop-removed-articles-level,
  7. wikiproject-level,
  8. field-of-inquiry-level,
  9. broad-field-level, and
  10. overall-wikipedia-level.
Your complaint -- which is utterly valid -- is that NPOV was applied unfairly, only at article-level (the fourth level), but was not applied at set-of-one-hop-removed-level (the sixth level). The question is, what to do about it? In the short run, you and I can try and fix some of the problems ourselves, personally. In the long run, the only thing that will help is WP:RETENTION, attracting more people to defend NPOV, and enforce NPOV at all levels. There are not enough editors to do what is needful, right now.
  As for the editors that are here, nobody is WP:REQUIRED to enforce NPOV across all the california-state-senator BLP articles... fortunately! I would leave in a heartbeat, if some bureaucrat was ordering me around, telling me what to work on, telling me what not to work on, and so forth. So there is no justification for failure to enforce NPOV, except the obvious one -- if not us, who? If not now, when?  :-)   Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I deal with reporters on a daily basis and have used that line more than once. Most of the time, it is in jest. This is a little more serious. There is something I don't understand, however. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me? More than once, editors have insisted upon "sourced" material. I understand that you do not consider the Senator's website to be "sourced" material (though you do cite his campaign website, but not the Senate website, which I find odd). But I did source several paragraphs that were from websites or news organizations not connected to the Senator or his website. These items were still removed. I would like to know why. An example of this work is pasted below. --Billbird2111 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"This work is reflected in 100% vote rankings from the California Taxpayers Association[1], Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association[2], the California Chamber of Commerce[3], the California Farm Bureau Federation, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.[4]"
1. You deleted the whole page and inserted the subject-approved biography verbatim. It's not a question of "Why didn't you like one or two of the paragraphs I suggested." 2. As you say, the biography is cited now, for certain aspects that are not considered unduly self-serving. But other assertions require different sources and published and vetted sources are preferred to primary and uncontested sources. As an abstract example, you can't be the primary source for whether you're "nice", and close friends aren't great sources for whether you're "good at math." Your examples are possibly good sources for the fact that this subject is supported by these organizations, but might not be acceptable for claims such as "great for job creation" or "great for the people of this State" as more abstract examples. The way we work out whether source is reliable is through consensus and discussion, on the talk page or with soliciting more eyes on a noticeboard. 3. At a certain point, a laundry list of Chambers of Commerce voicing support becomes a matter of undue weight. That's not the only story that other reliable sources give about this subject, and those viewpoints should be noted in the Biography. Other colleagues of this subject have details of their FBI investigations, their Conflict of Interest Hearings, their caucus disputes, included. Again you should look at some of the core policies, such as Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability, etc., with a non-defensive eye. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Also see my response on the article's talk page. 71.139.153.24 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, this is the only page I'm allowed to post on, so I must thank you from here. Thank you. I also wanted to answer a question, posed by NeilN I believe, on the Bob Huff Talk page. He did take steps to add in the clarification lines for Senator Huff's Heritage Schools legislation, which I also appreciated. But he also wanted "sourcing" for the problem. Sometimes, this isn't always available. Suggestions for legislation come from the community that Senator Huff serves. Sometimes these suggestions are made in the form of resolutions passed by Boards of Supervisors or City Councils, information that is public and can be sourced. But other times, suggestions for legislation arrive in the form of letters from constituents. Not all requests for legislation are granted. That would be next to impossible. I'm not sure why Senator Huff carried the Heritage Schools legislation. It may have arrived via a request from one or two school administrators. It may have been a letter. In these particular cases, it's impossible to source the "why" because it was never in the public domain to begin with. The question of "why did the Senator introduce this bill" is often found in the analysis or news releases issued from the Senator's office. These releases are posted on the Senator's web page, which some editors don't like to cite. But sometimes that is the only place where this particular information can be found. --Billbird2111 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt if anyone was asking you why Huff introduced the bill (that usually isn't part of an encyclopedia article), but probably why the bill was needed, i.e., what issue it addressed. That section seems to have been clarified and adequately sourced, so it look to me OK as is. 71.139.153.24 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Review the text before this edit[3] and you will see that the clarify template specified that the information needed to be clarified was exactly why heritage schools needed "protecting," since it was unclear in the copy existing at that time -- not necessarily why the Senator introduced the bill. Dwpaul Talk 01:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
If there are no independent reliable sources as to why something happens, we don't include a statement as to why something happened. If the only source we have is a politician's assertion (any politician, not just Huff), we either omit their claims or make it clear that this is their unverified assertion. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor (I'm not sure which one) placed the cn tag on that section. I was merely trying to provide that clarification. If the tag had not been inserted, I probably would have never added the followup information. There are also tags on the page asking "when" the Senator served on the many local committees he did serve on during his time in local politics. I am still trying to find those answers. But, don't worry. I won't make the mistake of every posting anything on the man's page again.--Billbird2111 (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"And sending tinted postcards of places they don't realise they haven't even visited ..." - Dwpaul Talk 19:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

As promised, I have taken this matter to Dispute Resolution at the request of Senator Huff.--Billbird2111 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbird2111 (talkcontribs) Billbird2111 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Bill, it is considered appropriate to notify all of the editors you listed as involved users on your noticeboard statement. And at DRN, you failed to list one very active editor: 75.83.65.81. -- 70.134.226.187 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies. It was not intentional --Billbird2111 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to apologize to me. I'm not 75.83.65.81. 70.134.226.187 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking that may be me, and I forgot to sign in. Nobody is supporting me in my efforts. This is lonely work. --Billbird2111 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't appear so... 70.134.226.187 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right. Not sure who it is. They are not supportive. Nobody has been.--Billbird2111 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's considered appropriate to notify all involved editors, not just those who support you. 70.134.226.187 (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Bill, it may have escaped your notice, but you were supposed to notify all the other folks who've been working on the article, the talk page and your talk page of late. I realize that this kind of procedure is not your area of expertise, so I added their names (including Dino's), and notified them, rather than razzing you about it gratuitously. That's about all I can do to help you here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Orange Mike I do appreciate the fact that you resisted the effort to razz me "about it gratuitously." I also appreciate the fact that you took the time to include all the other editors. And I really appreciate the fact that (Redacted). Weren't we supposed to steer clear of personal attacks? I have been doing my best of late to stay on the straight and narrow and keep matters confined to subject matter only. However, it's become quite clear that I've lost this battle, for now. If you see any changes on the Wikipedia entry for Senator Huff, they will either have been suggested by me on this Talk Page, OR, will have been placed there by someone else.--Billbird2111 (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to make a note here that the Dispute Resolution request is the very first place you made any objection at all to mentions of the 2009 procedural vote controversy, either here or on the article's talk page. If you had brought it up earlier, or when I asked you [4] to point out what you considered misinformation above, then I would have explained the addition then. I would ask you to reconsider the good faith advice I gave here, here, and here. It's not unusual or untoward for politician's pages to include details of published and newsworthy events, even if they're not actively favorable to the subject. People are probably not going to respond to direct requests to blanket-remove mention of controversy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@__ E L A Q U E A T E Read and understood. --Billbird2111 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad. I was starting to think you were in danger of becoming a story yourself, with late night hosts calling your employer "Senator Puff" for trying to write his own Wikipedia page. It's better, in the long run and for all concerned, to have a neutral and verifiable page, and not make news ourselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You may wish to respond here David in DC (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

howdy[edit]

Hello Bill, noticed your stuff when it hit the noticeboards, you can call me 74. I'm one of those people that tries to help you over the rough spots, and navigate the five-bazillion-strong policy-minefield. If you'd like me to help out, please leave me a note on my talkpage. p.s. I have some contact with David, and with Mark as it turns out; both of them are fine folks, and through them is how I noticed yourself. I've also spent some time on politics-pages, though I haven't worked on state senate stuff. Anyhoo, apologies you are having a rough time now, but I think there is hope.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Left my long-winded advice over there.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)



p.s. And, just left you three more long messages. Don't be scared off, though!  :-)   If you don't like my style of training, we can easily find you another trainer, who is a bit more terse and to the point, I won't be offended in the slightest. Let me know if the firehose of text is overwhelming, please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)




standardized tests[edit]

Huff opposed a plan that would have replaced the current paper-based testing system with new computer-only tests based on the Common Core learning goals (( irrelevant? or was that Common-Core stuff the *reason* for opposition? seems unlikely )). The Obama administration also opposed the new plan, because test scores would be unavailable during the new test's two-year trial period, and the U.S. Department of Education threatened to impose financial penalties on the state. The alternative plan, supported by Huff, was to require the use of both the old and the new test during that two-year period. The state Senate approved the bill original plan,[15] which became law as of MMM 'YY; the federal funds were? weren't? actually reduced.

Is this an improvement? I don't know anything about the issue, sorry. Is there actually somebody named Hough involved? If so they were not mentioned by the LATimes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so the namechange is confirmed as a bug, and I fixed it in mainspace. What about the other implied questions?
  1. Did the bill become law, with the two-year-test-scores-gap? Source? (Also, when?)
  2. If so, did the federal funds get withheld, as threatened, or not? Source?
  3. Did it matter that it was paper-versus-computerized?
  4. Did it matter that it was CommonCore now, versus CommonCore two years from now?
  5. What *did* matter to Huff, why did he oppose the changeover?
  6. Was it for the same reason as the D.O.Edu, the two-year-gap, or something else?
  7. Do we have a source that specifically says Obama was going to withdraw funding, specifically over the two-year-gap?
  8. Do we have a source that specifically says D.O.Edu was going to withdraw funding, specifically over the two-year gap?
  9. In the plan Huff supported, where both tests would be used in parallel, was it for just two years, or longer? Three? Indefinite?
  10. What else was *Noteworthy* as different, per being called out *as* a difference by some journalist/newscast/similar?
No need to answer all these questions, blow by blow. Just help me get the paragraph correct, so that it says what happened. Right now it is a bit awkwardly written, and there are some gaps in the story, so I don't know what to write as a 'final' version of the sub-segment. You don't have to tell the story neutrally, to me, though of course it will help.  :-)   We figure out the facts, and then we find the Reliable Sources that verify those facts (as being Noteworthy and as being fact-checked), and finally we write up the sentences, mirroring the sources. When we're happy, then we post a suggested-draft to the article-talkpage. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This is part of the problem I had been complaining about. I didn't add that section. Someone else did. Yes, I can research it for you. I'm not sure I'll be able to source it all. It's just not something that I had in there to begin with. Someone else added it. While some of the questions can be answered, I don't know if they can all be sourced. Newspaper information touches very lightly on what truly happens during the legislative process. These items are hashed out by staff representing elected leaders and those organizations impacted by the policy change during numerous meetings. The threat to withhold federal funds, for example, may have arrived via letter sent to the Chair of the Education Committee and the Governor's Office. It may have arrived in another form. I'm not sure. But I'll see what can be done about this. --Billbird2111 (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, there is a source, the LATimes article, which specifically mentions Huff by name. Do we need all those sentences, no more and no less? Are they *relevant* to, specifically, the article about Huff? Maybe not all of them. There will always be *some* mention of the standardized-test-bill-of-2011, or whatever, because the LATimes thought it was WP:NOTEWORTHY, and some editor thought it was worth putting in.
  What about taking stuff out? Well, that's the trick, right? Sometimes you put in simple things like "Huff was born 1953-09-09" and nobody takes it out, even though — until I found the newspaper quote about his birthday celebration — there was no source. How can you tell when something should be in, or when something should be out?
  Anyways, please don't feel you have to do a ton of research here. I just picked this paragraph, as one part of the article that *obviously* needs improvement (they didn't even spell Huff's name right!). The existing snippet does not give the reader enough of the story, and does not focus on Huff, which is what this article is about, after all. It seems like an incidental incident, rather than something that deserves *four sentences* as if it were a Big Deal in his overall career in the senate to date. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, I just noticed, somebody from Connecticut *just* made a bunch of the changes, which we are discussing above.  :-)   That's wikipedia for you. Here is the diff.[5] Version from December 7th:

Huff opposed a plan that would reduce testing as the state transitioned to the Common Core State Standards Initiative that left a gap between the old system and the new system. The Obama administration threatened to impose financial penalties on the state for having a gap. The plan was approved despite the penalties. .[5]

Version from December 10th, which is currently in mainspace, except I fixed the Hough/Huff spelling mistake:

Huff opposed a plan that would have replaced the current testing system with new tests based on the Common Core learning goals. Because test scores would be unavailable during the new test's two-year trial period, the U.S. Department of Education threatened to impose financial penalties on the state. The alternative supported by Hough was to require the use of both the old and the new test during that period. The state Senate approved the bill.[6]

Is this an improvement, or not? Was the old version closer to the truth? Is there anything still needing to be fixed/etc? If it will help, you can pass the older base-text along to your folks that are working on the paragraph. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just left suggested change on your talk page. Have no idea who this new editor is. But we certainly seem to have drawn a crowd, haven't we. Please don't go away, my friend. I like your calming words of wisdom. Do not have yourself replaced. And be patient, I may not always have the time to respond when I should. In fact, I should be working on a speech right now, not this Wikipedia entry.--Billbird2111 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, they are 69, from connecticut, or maybe just visiting. That's the beauty of wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anyways, yes, I'll stick. Not forever, mind you, but until you're ready to snatch the pebble from my hand, as the old saying goes. Go work on the speech, wikipedia will wait. WP:DEADLINE applies, wikipedia is for the ages. I'll keep pluggin with what you've given, thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

your_problem_subsection_title_here[edit]

What other paragraphs are bugging you in the article? Paste the three big ones here, each in their own section, and give me an idea about what problems/errors/omissions/tone you think should be in there. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this still a problem, or it is satisfactory? "This work is reflected in 100% vote rankings from the California Taxpayers Association[1], Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association[2], the California Chamber of Commerce[3], the California Farm Bureau Federation, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.[4]" Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Believe it or not, this is one of my original lines that survived the purge. Please leave it in there.--Billbird2111 (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, looks fine to me. So what are the *problems* that need removal, or revision, or balancing with broader context, and especially omissions? Those are where I can help. Focus on specific things you want fixed, and then watch how I fix them, and pretty soon you'll learn the ropes. That's the plan, anyways. If no problems with Huff's page jump out at you, how about other pages? You were complaining about unsourced puffery in other articles, which ones? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

on how, and how not, to seek help with a wikipedia article[edit]

Here is something you wrote that was pretty important.

...regarding Common Core and his opposition to a testing measure. Is this something you want me to post up on the Senator's talk page in hopes of getting it changed to what it should be? --Bill

I answered over there, but here is the nutshell. Don't post it on the talkpage yet. You and I can hash out what it *should* say, here on our own user-talkpages, before we bother other folks with our final-draft-suggestion. No point in filling up the article-talkpage with my long-winded-training-sessions, right? But we will put it over there eventually.

Because you are correct. The reference to "Hough" is clearly a typo. --Bill

Yup, I figured, but I wanted to confirm with you first, because maybe there really *was* somebody named Hough involved with that issue. But I've fixed that now, in the main article; not a controversial change, no need to ask on the talkpage about it. If something thinks "Hough" is correct, they will revert me, and *then* we can hit the article-talkpage about it. WP:BRD is the process. You, because you have COI, should be careful how WP:BOLD you are, for the moment. Once I get you trained, you can be bold again. Won't take long.

Thing is, if I start cutting and pasting, it's going to look like my Wikipedia knowledge suddenly jumped exponentially. In other words, it will be fairly obvious that I'm getting some help. --Bill

Yes, correct. And that is a good thing. Your wikipedia knowledge has already started the exponential jump, of course, but I get what you mean. And what you are hinting at, is a Very Redacted Serious Problem... asking for help in the "wrong way" can get you into a lot of trouble. But you and I, working together to improve the Bob Huff article, is not just okay, it is encouraged. Simplifying:

  1. Good. You and I work together. Nobody is paying me. I'm neutral about Huff. We strive to improve wikipedia, my inherent neutrality complementing your insider knowledge. Good!
  2. Bad. You and Mei Mei work together. You recruited her off-wiki. She isn't neutral about her spouse. You two gang up, trying to silence all other editors, drive them away, win the WP:BATTLEFIELD. Bad!
  3. Ugly. You create some other accounts. Bill3, Bill4, and so on. You login to them all at once. You and your puppet-accounts gang up, fight to the wikiDeath. Bill4 is banned, you make Bill5 and Bill6 to replace it. Ugly!

There are other ways to seek help, such as WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:ASSIST and WP:RfC and WP:3O and WP:DRN and WP:RSN and so on and so forth. We can cover those, later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


But the keys, the ones that can really get you into trouble with the McCarthy-era climate right now, are covered above.

Number1. Getting help, and giving help, naturally and collaboratively, is encouraged. You and I are all good.

Number2. Never make edits, unless you are logged in as BillBird2111. Never log in as anybody else, and never let anybody else (especially Senator Huff) make edits when logged in as you. That's sockpuppetry, and is a serious wikiCrime, doubly-especially-so if done with ill intent.

Number3. Never use your off-wiki powers, to try and influence on-wiki content. Don't ask co-workers to come help you win the content-battle. Don't ask friends-n-family to come help you win the content-battle. Don't ask other folks with your same political stance to come help you win the content-battle. Most importantly, don't treat it as a battleground, in the first place! That poisons everything. (All the proof you need of that statement can be found in the War On Socks... which you nearly got banned over... and which poisons the ability of some wikipedians to assume good faith about your honest and helpful actions.)

Is all this crystal clear? This is important stuff, so I gave it a section by itself. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Crystal clear. And don't worry, because even if I was inclined to do so? I don't have nearly the time to engage in sock-WP:PUPPET-ry. Besides, I see that done on sports forums that I also like to frequent from time to time and it's easy to spot people with multiple names. Secondly, everything I do here reflects upon my boss, who has to face the electorate every four years. The last thing I'm going to do is trying some idiotic move that's going to make him look bad. The fact that I got banned for 72 hours was bad enough. That wasn't the smartest of moves on my part. My only defense was that I was sincere in what I was attempting to do. There was no hidden agenda, other than the fact that I wanted to control all aspects of the Wikipedia entry about Bob Huff. As I've come to learn, that's just not going to happen. So, don't worry about content battles. I am not building an army of right-wing wikipedians. What would this accmplish? Other than a very public black eye for the Senator I represent and the State Senate in general? That's not a smart move.
Now, here is what I have done. I have submitted the section about Common Core testing to our Legislative Director, who also happens to be the education consultant in our office. I have also submitted the entry to the Education Consultant for the Senate Republican Caucus, with the request of how do we improve this, if it can be improved? They are working on suggested language. When I receive it back, I will attempt to source all of it. And then I will submit it to Bob Huff's talk page or to you -- whatever you would like. I hope that asking for assistance from the education consultants isn't a violation of Number3. I am merely attempting to draw upon their expertise in the field of education policy. They will make no attempt to force any changes, nor join any sort of Wikipedia Army. If you still find this distasteful, please let me know. Thank you again for your assistance. It is appreciated.--Billbird2111 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup, you got it exactly right, kudos for swimming through my sea of text, and living to tell the tale.  :-)   You can ask friends/co-workers/etc to help you with the language, certainly. You can even hire some fancy PR firm, who writes the press-releases for the Huff campaigns, to help you. But put a strict line of separation between your off-wiki activities, and Bill the Communications Director for Senator Huff in the real-o-verse ... and your on-wiki activities, where you are just User:Billbird2111, and have no special powers, just try like the rest of us to stay neutral, stick to the sources, and improve wikipedia. But yes, as you mention, it is a case of taste, or to be less charitable, of following the wiki-fashion. The winds of wikiPolitics change course from time to time, and you and I must follow the fashion, lest we be "crushed like grape" to use the memorable phrase.
  Walk on the left side of the road, in your real-life role. When you login, cross over to the right side of the road, in your on-wiki role. Don't walk in the middle of the road, or the big Orange truck driven by Mike will someday come barrelling along at 75 mph, with no time to sort out the good from the bad, and you'll get the block. Happened to me, blocked with no warning, and with no reason! Was a mistake, but took some time to correct. It's difficult at first to split your personality like this, but not that difficult. It's like attending church, right? A special context, where you act in a special way, that might seem odd elsewhere, but makes perfect sense in the correct setting.
  In other words, welcome to the church of wikipedia, my fellow wikipedian.  :-)   So while we wait for the legislative specialists to craft their prose about CommonCore, what else in the article is bugging you, the "top three" things that need fixing? As usual, thanks for improving wikipedia. Feel free to leave a note on my talkpage, if you reply and I don't respond quickly. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the nice things about Wikipedia that it takes a while to pick up on, is that we have an array of right-wing editors (even by American standards), and some left-wing editors (even by global standards), and a lot of folks in between. And lots of us are more than willing to help folks from the Other Side(s) improve articles, as long as the rules about NPOV, COI and other WikiALPHABETSOUP are followed. As it happens, state legislators are one of my specialties, and I really am eager to help, although I spend more time on 19th-century legislatures than 21st-century. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, great, thanks much. Cause I know bupkiss about CA state legislative stuff.  :-)   I'm trying to figure out the Great Testing Controversy of 2013, see bottom of my talkpage. I've found a replacement for the scribd source I think, but have not revised the language for neutrality. Feel free to drop in and hammer away. Also, if you like novels, might help Bill to check over my advice above, and correct where needed.
  p.s. I haven't seen you personally before, but your name came up when somebody was talking about an editor that was making trouble earlier this year. Not billbird here <grin>, they were some kind of internet publicist from New Mexico that was "making a name for themselves" in the high-tech world of SEO by socking wikipedia. Thanks for your hard work there, appreciate it. p.p.s. And yeah... pretty sure I might not vote for Senator Huff, but then, it would depend on who else was running, right? Right. But all that real-world behavior drops into the Cloak Of Neutrality +3 here on-wiki. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

question about Other Side(s)[edit]

Hey, are any of these Republicans? They were the aye-votes on the state-senate-education-cmte for AB484, Huff was the only nay.

Ayes: Block, Correa, Hancock, Hueso, Liu, Monning, Torres

I can look them up, no problem of course, but I figured you could prolly tell me off the top of your head.  :-)   Danke.

p.s. Somebody asked for a source (newspaper/teevee/similar ... not self-pub'd) that "Huff has a reputation as a moderate Republican". Do you have one handy? If not, I can WP:GOOG for that methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, they are all Democrats. There are only two Republicans on the Senate Education Committee (we're kind of at a low point here in CA). Senator Wyland, who also serves on the committee, laid off (ie: didn't vote) on the bill. Don't ask my why. I couldn't tell you.
As far as the other question is concerned, I'm not even sure he wants that in there. I have to clear everything through him. I'm sure you understand.--Billbird2111 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the dem-repub info, kinda what I suspected, but I hate to guess, you know? As for the 'moderate repub' thing, yup, 'tis your job, in the off-wiki land, to check with the BLP. That said, remember, that once you are in on-wiki land, whatever your boss may want in the article, and whatever they might wish was out of the article, stops mattering. Once you login, the cloak of neutrality, the religion of sticking to the sources, falls upon you.
  My guess is, there may not *be* a source for the 'moderate republican' quote, and that somebody here just WP:EDITORIALIZING'd it into existence. But usually, politicians have both an image they want to project, and a reputation that the press reports. John McCain wanted to project the maverick, but voted 87% of the time with his party in the 112th congress, except on key compromise-votes where he voted otherwise. Look at somebody like Kirsten Gillibrand, who voted one way when she was a federal rep from a conservative upstate district, and then completely reconfigured her voting-personality when she became senator of the entire state.
  No doubt, there is an image Bob Huff wants to project, and that will be clear from his campaign literature over the years, which we can cite as WP:ABOUTSELF, because it is about Huff's view of himself and his goals for his political career, very valid stuff to go in a BLP article, within limits. See the stuff above, about how Huff's opinions on opera v bluegrass, prolly don't make it into the article. Huff is a politician, so his political views *do* typically pass muster.
  Besides the views/goals/stances/etc Huff holds, there is also the reputation he has, as reported in Reliable Sources (*not* self-published ones), who have analyzed his voting record, or analyzed what other politicians say about him, or analyzed what voters said, or so on. Sometimes, quite frankly, they just guess... or even lie. But although wikipedia is supposed to stick to the sources, as a way of staying true to the neutral-point-of-view, even when sources *lie* we still report what they said... but ideally, we try to immediately present *another* source, which has the truth of it. Most readers will not be fooled. Staying neutral is easy; wikipedia just describes what the sources say, and when the sources conflict, we describe the conflict amongst those sources, never decide it. Getting back to what we started with above, because *other* people are involved here, we cannot just pluck a claim from the campaign-literature, about the reputation he believes he has, that is not WP:ABOUTSELF.
Okay for self-published quotation: "If elected, my top priority will be education" (as long as nobody challenges it... and usually nobody would... it is a statement about Huff's own goals, per WP:ABOUTSELF)
Requires cite in independent source: "I have a reputation for being tough on crime" (who says? Huff? not good enough... some *journalist* with a fact-checking dept must say it, per WP:NOTEWORTHY)
There is some wiggle-room, some subtle stuff, even when you *have* a Reliable Source, that says something 'close' to what ought to be in the article, per the weight of the sources. Here are three examples.
journalist#1. "Everybody knows Huff is tough on crime." Wikipedia can say -- Huff is tough on crime.[1]
journalist#2. "Recent polls show voters think Huff is tough on crime." Wikipedia can say -- Polls show Huff is tough on crime.[2]
journalist#3. "Huff says that he is tough on crime." Wikipedia can say -- Huff says he is tough on crime.[3] (( sounds similar to WP:ABOUTSELF... but better! Reliably-Sourced! ))
Right now, the article-prose in mainspace is very specifically implying that Huff has a reputation as a 'moderate repub' with other state senators in the CA legislature. *That* claim requires a very specific quotation in a very Reliable Source... and it seems quite unlikely it will pass muster. The editor from CT already challenged it, so if Huff wants to keep it, or something like it, you will need a source, but if he does not, we can agree with 69 from CT, and suggest the 'moderate repub reputation' stuff be yanked outright, unless somebody else *does* have a Reliable Source saying just that.
  That brings up the obvious question... since a politician's reputation among voters/colleagues/pundits/whatever *does* belong in their BLP... do you have any Reliable Sources on tap, which *do* say something you want in the article? As a wikipedian, you are obliged to stick religiously to the sources, but you don't have to find positive ones if you prefer to look for negative ones, or negative ones if you prefer to look for positive ones. You can do as you wish, when it comes to seeking out sources. WP:REQUIRED and also WP:BURDEN are the keys, here, as well as WP:DEADLINE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

question about IP address[edit]

My advice to you, about what to do if you forget, and send a message or make an edit without using your login, was incorrect -- sorry about that, I just found out today.  :-)   There is this thing called WP:OS, and there are some people called oversighters, which have access to the wikipedia servers. These oversighter-folks can make changes directly to the servers, which wipe away information that was not supposed to be published. Here is the FAQ

Q: I have a Wikipedia account, but I forgot to log in to my account before editing, and now my IP address is attached to my edits. Can you remove it?
A: Yes. The IPs of account-holders are considered private information. You may contact an oversighter to request suppression of your IP. Please note that this courtesy is not intended to allow registered editors to edit logged out to avoid scrutiny of their actions; it is intended only for accidental use of an IP rather than an account.

As you might guess, some people don't care if their IP address is out there for all to see. You may not be one of those people! And you may not understand why keeping it under wraps is sometimes a good thing. Nutshell version, if somebody such as myself knows what your IP address is, I can look up your geographic location, usually to the zipcode level, sometimes much more finely (street address). I can also try and contact your computer, over the internet, and break in through your firewall; this might be possible even if I don't have your password, or anything else. So, plenty of folks like to keep their IP address secret. Feel free to skip all this crap, but at least read the page-titles:

  1. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_in_the_real_world#Don.27t_count_on_your_anonymity
  2. Wikipedia:IP_edits_are_not_anonymous
  3. Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people#You_are_not_a_number
  4. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_anonymous#Voluntarily_sharing_your_identity
  5. Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too
  6. Wikipedia:On_privacy,_confidentiality_and_discretion#Who_are_we_when_we_edit_Wikipedia.3F

So, here is the question. Do you care if regular people know your IP? Today, or perhaps more importantly, ten years from now? There are always *some* people that can get that information: Google, the NSA, Experian, your ISP, 'computer security specialists', and several hundred wikipedia folks that have server access or special permissions or whatever. But the average person, who is just another wikipedian slash citizen, journalist, investigator, or political rival *might* use your IP address against you. It's prolly best to assume they know your IP, in any case; but, still.

  There is some risk-mitigation, if you are careful to login before you click edit, and if, when you do forget to login, you contact an oversighter to perma-delete your IP from the public wiki-record. If you wish, we can ask some oversighter to go back and wipe your IP thataway. In fact, somebody *did* wipe your IP in one case, and I complained about it (not being able to see the mysterious info which was mysteriously deleted from my talkpage without my consent that is!), which is when I learned about all the oversighter stuff being used in forgot-to-login scenarios. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

vortex[edit]

Hello Bill, I was planning to work on this more today, but got sucked into the wiki-vortex.  :-)

  You prolly know enough to post on Talk:Bob Huff safely now, keeping your cool and arguing from the sources, not worrying too much about the exact language which goes into mainspace, as long as the main ideas and the main facts get in there. Feel free to boldly go forth, and collaborate with your fellow wikipedians there.

  That said, I'm still interested in helping you fine-tune your newfound skills, plus improve the Huff page, and then work on a few other pages in California politics, so you get comfy doing it on your lonesome. But I may not have time this week (we'll have to see how my other less-fun wiki-tasks turn out... maybe I'll get lucky). Anyhoo, hope you are doing well, feel free to drop me a note any time, or a reminder to hurry up to meet the WP:DEADLINE.  :-)   But I figured I would drop you this note, just in case you are sitting at the keyboard, biting your nails and waiting for the orange bar from 74, wondering what the heck is taking so long. If you *weren't* worried before, no need to start, this isn't a break-up note, but feel free to hang-out with other editors, whilst I'm swamped elsewheres; I'm not the jealous type. Talk to you later, my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, vortex is mostly over. Do you have things you'd like to see changed/added/stripped/improved this weekend? Let me know what the top three are, if you have a moment. I'll try to finish up the assessment-testing stuff, and run through the article with my own eye for problems, too. Gracias; talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Boy, that must have been some vortex you got sucked into. OK -- you wanted top three. I can only give you top two. I can give you a wish for Top 3. But I know it's not going to happen, so...
  1. The proposed fix I left on the suggested changes on your talk page hasn't been implemented, even though you indicated that it seemed OK to you, as long as the sourcing was fixed (you didn't like references to scribd).
  2. Info box to the right? Under Spouse(s)? Can you change Spouse(s) to just Spouse?
  3. I really want to find a way to get that Planned Parenthood score off his page, permanently. I have absolutely NO WISH, whatsoever, to get into some sort of flame war with Planned Parenthood. That said, the organization is opposed to the Republican Party Platform of pro life. Because of that opposition, they are never going to rank a Republican in a positive light. I have made the request to remove this ranking from the Huff page before, only to be rejected. So, again, this is "wish" more than anything else.
  4. Did I tell you that you could go away? Please don't. I have a number of duties to attend to. This is just one of them. It's just as important as the others. But there are many others.--Billbird2111 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found a replacement source for scribd... it is a good investigative lead to provide those, if you know something is true but haven't found a Reliable Source ... in this case, the scribd username led me to the radio station which uploaded the document to scribd, and there I found a few stories about the assessment-testing (the radio station's website is a Reliable Source for their news-reporting). I'll put something together that satisfies me, and then WP:BRD with the other folks, if anybody objects.

Can fix the infoboxen. Pretty hilarious that it default to "spousen" ... lazy template writers, lazy!

Yes, the planned parenthood rating is almost certainly Reliably Sourced, and therefore it is prolly gonna stay. We can "soften the blow" by printing Huff's ranking relative to *other* California Senate repubs however... I'll have to talk with somebody that is more familiary with interest-group ratings. OrangeMike does historical, back prior to interest groups... but there are some wikiprojects that can help. However, we can also check standards elsewhere... if typically the interest-group ratings are left out for state-level-senate-seats, then unless there was some huge controversy, maybe it can be yanked? Likely not, though.

And yeah, I wasn't trying to leave, but I knew you were hoping to get work done this week, and I was gonna have no luck doing any. I'll see about your christmas wishes, have to check my list, hmmmmm.  :-)   Have a good weekend, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

WAIT! Backup. "Relative to other California Senate Repubs?" That means, you're going to get ALL of them into trouble, and the request will have come from a staffer in the Senate Republican Leader's office. The number one rule, in my line of work, is speak no evil, or anything for that matter, for a Senator who does not employ you. In other words, if I wind up dragging other Senate Republicans into this, that's trouble that I want no part of. So, let's drop Christmas wish #3 and proceed onward (whew!)... --Billbird2111 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You are still thinking of Huff's article as something that "you" are responsible for controlling, in your real-world persona.  :-)   Go read the WP:5P one more time, especially pillar two and pillar three. As a wikipedian (the digital being "Billbird2111" not the physical human "Bill"), you must have on a cloak of neutrality, and your goal must be simply to improve the encyclopedia. For the readership, who trusts wikipedia to be neutral and fair, that is. Whether that improves the Huff article, in the eyes of your boss, is immaterial... to "Billbird2111" if not necessarily to "Bill". — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes and no. I do understand the position of neutrality. At the same time, you must realize that as an employee of the State Senate, I am trying to reflect the Senator in the best light possible. That's not going to change. There are a number of rules to follow in this line of work. One of them is to not interfere, or speak for, any Senator or elected member that does not employ me directly, or influence any sort of communication regarding another Senator or elected member.--Billbird2111 (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course it is the case that Bill is trying to reflect Bob Huff in the best light, because of your real-o-verse positions... that is why, the bright-line-rule says that Billbird2111 should have somebody like 74/OrangeMike/whomever, without such an apparent inherent conflict, check over the prose for neutrality before it hits mainspace. Still, it is at least theoretically possible for a person named Bill, to write prose neutrally... by changing their mindset, from trying to reflect Huff in the best light possible, to simply trying to reflect Just The Facts, as documented in reliable sources. This does not mean you have to reflect word-for-word what the sources say, because quite frankly, the sources themselves are often biased/POV/unfair!
  Neutrality means you have to take the encyclopedic facts from those sources, and present them in an encyclopedic tone. This knack is something worth striving for: the better you get at doing it, the less you will need somebody like me. You'll develop a reputation for suggesting impeccably-reliably-sourced utterly-neutral-tone sentences on the talkpage, and other regulars on the Huff article will start to trust your suggestions, recognizing you follow the five pillars. And best of all, as long as the facts are in Huff's favor, reflecting those facts will always reflect well on Huff.  :-)   All he needs to do, is act honorably, in concert with reality, and the facts will reflect that. He does that, from what I can tell, already. Worth mulling over, methinks. On wikipedia, it really isn't supposed to be the case that 'the powerful' control what is in mainspace... it's supposed to be the case that 'the policy' controls what is in mainspace. Encyclopedic stuff, neutral in tone, high quality.
  As for the work-rule that you, as comm-dir for Huff's office, should not influence marketing-communication regarding another elected member... fair enough, I suppose. But that's different from saying that the article Bob Huff should therefore never mention Senator Wyland, or Senators Block/Correa/Hancock/Hueso/Liu/Monning/Torres, or Governor Brown, or President Obama... mainly because, the Bob Huff article is not a marketing-communique from the office of the senate republican leader in sunny California. It's an encyclopedia article, designed to reflect the facts, dry, accurate, neutral, no more, no less, without undue weight, reliable, well-sourced, no spin. Pretty much the opposite of a staff communication... it is for education, not for persuasion.
  My point here isn't to try and get you to change your approach (see first paragraph of my talkpage-message today for *that* attempt :-)   but merely to say that if you are not comfy suggesting anything about other elected folks, then we can stay away from the other articles about California politicians entirely. Those other articles do need work from somebody of course, but that somebody doesn't have to be you. WP:REQUIRED applies, you are free to contribute where and as you feel comfy; same for the rest of us wikipedians, of course. (I'm *personally* interested in solving the lobbyist-rating-problem, not because of Bob Huff in particular, but because of all the other articles I've worked on in the past; if you'd rather not mess with an attempt to solve that particular sticky wicket here, now, in the context of the Bob Huff article, that is no problem -- there are plenty of other articles where I can try to achieve consensus for dealing with group-ratings in a way the improves the encyclopedia.) Also, if you have other rules-of-the-business, might be worth filling me in now, so I'm aware of the situation, and what you're worried about, and what you are trying to achieve. At the moment, I'm thinking the gist of your goal is risk-minimizing omnidirectional friendship, or more plainly, ain't picking no fights with nobody.  :-)   The media tends to focus on the drama and the adversarial in their coverage of politics (cf churnalism), but wikipedia is supposed to describe Just The Facts, the historically-important legislation, that sort of thing. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


  p.s. Technology-and-etiquette note... if you reply in the middle of a comment, you should copy the person's datestamp and attach it to the portion above where you start replying. That way, it is clear who was speaking, to some reader who may be lurking (hello OrangeMike :-)   or perhaps more importantly, to yourself if you ever need to read back through this stuff later. However, note that although most folks are pretty lax about mid-comment-replies aka splitting-up-comments, as long as you are careful to attach names when you do it, there is a significant minority -- one out of ten or maybe even a little higher -- who absolutely positively HATE it when somebody replies mid-comment, ever, no matter what. I found this out the hard way, as you prolly gathered.  :-)   The same folks tend to dislike it when information is repeated, ironically... but not as much as they hate comment-splitting. So, feel free to split *my* comments, here on our user-talkpages, but get in the habit of never splitting comments on the article-talkpage; somewhat like pausing a DVD for ad-hoc intermission, some folks cannot handle it, and may complain loudly, demanding apologies. If it happens, just apologize, and try again, writing your reply at the bottom of the stack, and quoting a few words of what you are replying to. Like this:
74 wrote: "cloak of neutrality... to improve the encyclopedia... Whether that improves the Huff article, in the eyes of your boss, is immaterial..." Yes and no. I do understand.... —Billbird
Does that make sense? With that technique, you can reply to specific portions of what I said (or even what several different people said) all at once, while still keeping your own reply-message at the very bottom of the discussion-thread, no splitting-of-comments required. Usually you won't need to worry about such things, in simple conversations that go back and forth naturally, but in long and/or complex conversations, the quoting-what-username-wrote-then-replying-to-that technique is helpful. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
74.192.84.101 (talk) wrote: Does that make sense? Yes, I think so. Did I do this correctly? --Billbird2111 (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


  Anyhoo, no, I'm not trying to get Huff in hot water with his Senate colleagues. I'm just trying to improve the usefulness of wikipedia's articles on politicians. We often have a bunch of interest-group ratings. Every single one of them is politicized. Every single one of them is biased negatively towards one side or the other. Most of them are deceptively named, and used as weapons of rhetoric at best, ankle-biters of sophistry at worst. One way to eliminate the repub-vs-dem aspect, is to give relative-within-the-party ratings, rather than raw ratings.
  For instance, there is an NRA rating, right? Without looking anything up (I'm lazy :-)   let us assume that the give Huff an 80%. (Actually methinks they use letter-grading, but again, lszy.) Is that a good rating? A bad rating? Well, it depends, right? Compared to the 99% rating the best repub in Idaho gets, it's pretty bad. Compared to the highest-rated dem in California at 55% it's great. 80% might be the highest-rated-incumbent-repub in CA, which is what matters to CA voters, methinks (they prolly don't care much about how CA repub-candidates compare to Idaho repub-candidates). Similarly, what matters to voters in CA is how Huff compares to other CA repubs in the Planned Parenthood ratings, not how he compares to Connecticut repubs, or DC repubs, and certainly not how he compares to CT dems or DC dems.
  TLDR, nothing bad will happen. We're not gonna turn Huff's page into a breach of the Reagan Corollary. But by we, I mean we wikipedians, which includes Billbird2111, who is only concerned about improving the encyclopedia, and staying neutral, and helping educate the readership with facts... unlike the real-world Bill, employee of Huff himself, Billbird2111 does not try to worry about what wikipedia says, in terms of their job-prospects. Billbird2111 just wants wikipedia to be true, correct, and fair. In particular, recognizing that *sources* can be POV-biased, we want mainspace to achieve NPOV neutrality *despite* that limitation. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Historically, it's just not true that all Republicans have a bad reputation in the eyes of Planned Parenthood, or vice versa. That's just a recent relic of the politicization of what was once not an ideological group of issues. Also: it is NEVER our practice to only include ratings by groups with whom the subject has a good relation (or a bad one); the entire point of ratings is to show how the subject is regarded by a variety of notable interests, regardless of party or other alignment(s). It would be grossly distorted to only list groups which rate Huff (or anybody else) favorably; what if the reader wants to know his record on labor, or birth control, or GLBT issues, or...? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, Mike, you know more about the history of lobbying than me, so I'll have to take your word that Planned Parenthood has only "recently" ranked one party systematically higher than the other. Maybe you mean, recently-as-in-post-Roe-v-Wade?  :-)   Or maybe you just mean it has become dramatically more blatantly obviously utterly politicized recently, as in, the past decade or two, which I would *absolutely* agree with.
  As for what groups should be included... I agree that we wikipedians should not try to pick and choose rating-groups, based on whether they give the BLP a positive-or-negative rating. However, I disagree that we should just stick any old rating we find (in the WP:PRIMARY sense) into an article. Sure, if you head over to votesmart or ballotpedia or similar external websites, you can find a ton of rating-group info on almost anybody (though usually more at the federal level than the state level). But wikipedia is not supposed to have, for want of a better phrase, fan-cruft aka the sort of stuff which is positive but not actually Noteworthy (nor the opposite which I hereby dub "notafan-cruft" aka the sort of cruft which is negative but not actually Noteworthy). We're only supposed to list ratings that are actually WP:NOTEWORTHY, which means, those ratings that some secondary or tertiary source thought was particularly worth mentioning. So I'd like to verify (if I can ever get through wishes #1 and #2 :-)   that the rating-group info *is* actually in fact WP:NOTEWORTHY according to some independent reliably-sourced journalist's pen, as opposed to some campaign-proponent and/or campaign-opponent.
  This is not just trying to be a stickler for Da Rulz... because I kinda doubt that Huff's stance on the issues that Planned Parenthood cares about is a ___voting_issue___ for district 29, if you know what I mean. Huff's position (relative to his opponent in the 29th and to his coworkers in Sacramento) on issues like spending and taxation and education and regulation are what matter, because Huff does not even *try* and get involved with controversial Planned Parenthood issues, either in terms of campaign-rhetoric or in terms of in-office-statutory-efforts, that I can see (bet Billbird2111 can confirm! ;-)   at least so far in his political career. The readership will therefore not really care what his rating is from Planned Parenthood, because they won't be voting for-or-against on that basis. Similarly, historians won't care, because Huff's position on that set of issues is about as important as Huff's opinion on bluegrass-vs-operas... neither question will ever come up as a political football.
  Point being, I'm not sure I agree the readership "wants to know" what Planned Parenthood (or the dozen other lobbyist-groups) gave as a rating to Huff, because such things might merely embody some flavor of posit-cruft or negat-cruft. On the other hand, maybe the secondary sources which prove the ratings are WP:NOTEWORTHY exist, in which case, the ratings stay in the article. But if not, inquisitive readers should be sent onwards to ballotpedia or other offsite places, methinks. More on this later, when I've done some actual legwork on finding where Huff sits, relative to CA repub, CA dems, fed repub, fed dem, Idaho/Iowa/Hawaii/NewHampshire repub, Oregon/DC/Georgia/NewHampshire dem, today and historically. Might put things into a clearer perspective, or might instead be massively too migraine-complex. We shall see.  :-)   But I'd rather have categorized-voting-record-trends, over interest-group-ratings, any day. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

update on history of student-testing AB 484, plus FY2013 budget which passed in June/July 2013[edit]

Here is my rough draft text... I've added a few sources, and some clarifying language for the readership that may not be familiar with the issues, so it got too wordy. Maybe OrangeMike can help me pare it down a bit, before I am WP:BOLD and jam it in there? Currently in mainspace:

#1A. Huff opposed a plan that would have replaced the current testing system with new tests based on the Common Core learning goals. [citation needed]

#1B. Because test scores would be unavailable during the new test's two-year trial period, the U.S. Department of Education threatened to impose financial penalties on the state. [citation needed]

#1C. The alternative supported by Huff was to require the use of both the old and the new test during that period. [citation needed]

#1D. The state Senate approved the bill. [7]

Proposed replacement:

((#1A)) Huff strongly opposed a plan that eliminated California’s current student assessment system—including social studies—to be replaced later with a new assessment-system. [8]

((#1B)) The new system was not ready to immediately replace the old one; if the existing system was ended in 2013, no test-scores would be available for two years. Therefore, the U.S. Department of Education threatened[when?] to impose financial penalties on California, if the bill passed in that form. [9]

((#1C)) Alternative legislation, supported by Huff, would have retained the existing test-assessments for California’s students during the two-year transition period. [10]

((#1D)) The state Senate approved the immediate-implementation option, knowing it could cost public schools billions in federal funding; [11]

((#2E)) Huff was the only member of the education subcommittee to vote against immediate elimination of the existing test-system. [12]

((#2F)) Governor Brown signed the bill into law during October 2013. [13]

((#2G)) "[N]ot having the budget" was one of the reasons that Huff's proposal (to continue the existing test-assessments for two additional years) failed to be adopted. [14]

((#2H)) Earlier that year, during the work on budget legislation in May 2013, Huff said that only half of the Prop 30 taxdollars ended up going to fund education (whereas 100% had been promised). [15]

I thought about adding something like this, as well... "((#2i)) As of December 2013, it is unknown[vague] whether federal funding penalties will be imposed."[citation needed] Is it for sure that 2014 will involve penalties? Or is that not going to be known until May 2015? Which is the first school-year that students in CA will not be publicly reporting any test-scores?

Anyhoo, some of my additions seem good to my eyes, and the discussion of funding is in a way a separate topic in the State Senate (budgetary issue rather than a pure education issue), so maybe this longer version is not running afoul of WP:UNDUE yet. Suggestions, criticism, etc? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This looks good as far as I can tell, but I'm going to defer to my education consultant to make sure he's OK with it. As for penalties and what year they will take effect, I will again have to defer to our education consultant. As far as the claim that Senator Huff was the only member of the State Education Committee to vote against the elimination of the existing test-system, I do believe that Senator Wyland laid off (didn't enter a vote) for the bill. That's the same as voting no, fyi.--Billbird2111 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, I'll keep working on it, let me know if they say otherwise. p.s. Uhhh... you are correct about Wyland not entering either nay or yea... that said... I'm not familiar with the voting-mechanism used in CA state senate, but at the federal level, an abstain is definitely not equivalent to a nay-vote.

  For round numbers, we can talk about a vote in the federal United States Senate, which currently has 45 repubs versus 55 dems-and-indempendents. If there is a vote with 45 repub-nay versus 55 dem-yea, the bill passes by simple 55.00% majority. However, if twenty dems abstain (hypothetically), then the vote is 45 repub-nay versus 35 dem-yea, and the vote fails to pass by a simple majority, because only 43.75% of the voting federal senators voted in favor, yet enough votes were cast and enough senators were there to suffice for a quorum#United_States. If the education-subcommittee-of-the-CA-state-senate follows similar rules, then of the nine members, six have to be present to constitute a quorum where voting can take place.

yea-votes reqd for a simple majority no abstentions one abstention two abstentions three abstentions
with 9 members present 5 yeas 5 yeas 4 yeas 4 yeas
with 8 members present 5 yeas 4 yeas 4 yeas 3 yeas
with 7 members present 4 yeas 4 yeas 3 yeas 3 yeas
with 6 members present 4 yeas 3 yeas 3 yeas 2 yeas

And so on. In other words, Wyland abstaining changed nothing, because five yea-votes were still required. On the other hand, if hypothetically two of the dems had voted nay with Huff, and one of the other dems had abstained for some reason, then the vote would have been 4 yea versus 3 nay (Wyland voting nay in this example scenario would have meant 4 yea versus 4 nay ... tie ballgame). By the federal rules anyways! If the abstentions really are counted as nay-votes, then Huff voting nay, two dems voting nay, one dem abstaining, and Wyland abstaining would have meant 5 nay-votes-or-abstains versus 4 yea-votes.

p.p.s. That's the math of laying-off... but usually, in a case where the decision is crystal clear (cmte is packed with 7 dems who are going to get their way if they vote along party lines), the decision made by the members of the minority party is a long-term-geopolitical one, rather than a short-term-tactical choice. Wyland abstained, therefore he can later say to constituents, "I did not vote against Common Core" while the next day saying to another set of constituents, "I did not vote *for* Common Core either".  :-)   Huff, on the other hand, has taken a definite stand: "I voted to keep test-results public during the next two years && voted to comply with the strings tied to our federal education-funding".

  Anyhoo, as far as reporting the committee-votes, that can be elided from the mainspace-article, the info is from a WP:PRIMARY source, which means it must be used "with care" ... we can put it in, but somebody might challenge it as not WP:NOTEWORTHY enough, if no journalists reported on the tally. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested Change[edit]

Under the "Family" heading for Senator Huff, could you please make a change to SIX grandchildren instead of five. There is no need to change the attribution as I updated his website earlier.

And just so everyone knows -- I work for Bob Huff and I'm paid by the State Senate, which Senator Huff is an elected member of. There's nothing shady going on here, I promise. OR -- if the admins who watch this Huff posting religiously deem it OK for me to make simple changes like this, I'd be so happy to do it.

I've just been told to not make any changes -- but suggest them here -- which is exactly what I'm doing.

Thank you --Billbird2111 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I´d be glad to, but the source we link to still says 5? [6] "Senator Huff and his wife, Mei Mei, have three sons, a daughter and five grandchildren." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is his campaign website that I do not update, but can and should request to update it. Here is the biography of the website that I do update, and six is correct * Official website . I do appreciate your help in this matter. And if you could remove the reference to "spouse(s)" and make it just "spouse," I would also appreciate that. Bob Huff has just one wife -- Mei Mei. --Billbird2111 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Six it is. "Spouse(s)" seem to be WP standard (see for example George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan), so I choose not to touch that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to this matter. --Billbird2111 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)