Talk:Jim Suttle: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:20, 12 August 2010

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

dislike

stating that people dislike him is a attack? hardly.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is a politician , at least half the people want their friend in his job, not notable partisan issues belong on facebook not here, this is an encyclopedia not a protest article, thanks. What we want is notable stuff about his life story. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as not doing well at his job.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Also one link out of a dozen was facebook.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

snow removal

Shouldn't something be said about his mishandling of the snow storm and the countless deaths attributed to it?--174.71.89.43 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just do not think it is appropriate to list snow removal and impeachment on his page. It would be different if either of these were major issues, but this does not seem to be the case. If the best source we can get is user comments on a news site, where it seems to be about half and half on snow removal, and the impeachment being around 100 people on a facebook page, are those really up to the standards of wikipedia? It just does not seem objective to me, perhaps we should take them off until proper sourcing can be found? I don't want to get in an edit war here, so would that be acceptable? --go2102 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go2102 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 Such as not doing well at his job.--[[Special:Contributions/174.71.89.43|174.71.89.43]] ([[User talk:174.71.89.43|talk]]) 13:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
+Also one link out of a dozen was facebook.--[[Special:Contributions/174.71.89.43|174.71.89.43]] ([[User talk:174.71.89.43|talk]]) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 ===snow removal===