Talk:Ken Boyd (politician)

Revisions to boyd page

I would like to address the earlier comments regarding my revisions to Ken Boyd (politicians) page. I am sorry you do not approve of my edits, but please discuss before reverting them. I spent much time getting the picture and other information on the page, which you so casually dismissed. Besides that, much of the so called 'cited' information you claim that I deleted was in fact factually incorrect and taken out of context. If you follow the link and read the articles on the given subjects you will find that the author was clearly bias and was attempting to find any and all avenues to back up his/her claims.

That being said, I have tried to be extremely non-bias in my approach. His opponent, Cynthia Neff, unfortunately does not have a Wikipedia page. I searched and it appears to have been deleted by the admins due to her not being a 'person of importance'. Rest assured that if her page was to be on Wikipedia then I would update it with the same studious approach I have taken to Mr. Boyds. I am new to the political arena and simply wish to add to this community in an unbiased manner. If you EVER feel I am being bias in any way PLEASE let me know and I will fix it.

Your 'revision' of my page simply reverts it back to its bias 2010 state which does not cover any of the ongoing debates about the Western Bypass or its assosciated groups. Please talk to me on here before you do something like that again. Thanks!

Escytherdon (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I undid your edits because you REMOVED information. Wikipedia is not concerned with the next election, as much as giving a good portait of the individual. Changing the article to be mostly relevant to the next election would be focusing on recentism. If you think something that is SOURCED is incorrect-challenge it here. Also-feel free to make ADDITIONS to the article text without removing properly cited information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.162.153 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

You state that wikipedia is concerned with "giving a good portrait of the individual", and yet your changes have included factually incorrect information. You have changed the page to state that "Despite committing to not running for another term on the Board, he announced he would campaign for reelection" This is not factually correct and very negative. In the corresponding article to back this up the closest it says to anything like that is "As of now, however, he’s not anticipating a third run. “I’ve all but come to the conclusion that this is going to be my last term on the Board of Supervisors.” He is not 'commiting' to anything, simply saying that he is considering having his second be his last term. Your terminology frames this in a negative light and does not give an accurate portrait of the individual.

You also state that Wikipedia is about ADDITIONS to text without removing properly cited material, yet that is what you have done with almost every section of the article. The biography information was taken and improved upon by both news articles and .org websites in my changes. You removed the information even THOUGH it was properly cited and neutral. You removed his non profit service altogether and the records of the previous elections. How are those not relevant? In reading what you changes the Bypass text to say, it is obvious you are against it as you are only quoting negative things about it whereas mine was neutral and had a list of members on the citizens committee. Also, you removed all of his committees and organizations he is a member of while on the BOS, those are important to know (like the finance committee)

Sorry but your changes are being reverted. Escytherdon (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon04:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting by removing valid sources just because you don't like it. Feel free to challenge SPECIFIC aspects of the original texts if you would like, and make the additions you made IN ADDITION TOO the original text. We don't go around deleting stuff that's in the sources just because someone doesn't like them. If you think a source is being misrepresented, take it to the talk page-don't remove it. You were bold and removed, now discuss what you want removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.210.58 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Valid sources? Sure, the following is what I am removing and why I am removing it, even though you feel as though you are above such things.

• 1.He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments. Where is the source for this? It is bias and you know it.
• 2. Despite committing to not running for another term on the Board, he announced he would campaign for reelection - We went over this, your source does not have him commiting to anything
• 3. He did not serve in the Vietnam War, allegedly because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] - Allegedly is a bias term and you and I both know it.
• 4. Once again you took out his committee chairs and appointments. Those are necessary as that is what he works on AS SUPERVISOR. You would never do the same for any other Politican as that is what tey have control over.
• 5. The move would benefit his mega-developer friend, Wendell Wood. - Where is the source for them being friends? That is bias and you know it.
• 6. The whole Hollymead section is misrepresented.
• 7. You quote taxpayers for common sense saying US29 is a wasteful project, but do not mention that this was the OLD plan, not the new.
• 8. You state that the plan is highly unpopular with the public, this is not true. If anyone ONLY did what the people wanted who showed up to town hall meetings it would hardly be indicative of the wider public audience. You have no source for this statement (valid).
• 9. The move was condemned in an unprecedented editorial in The Daily Progress, Charlottesville's conservative daily, stating that the actions were "disrespectful toward constituents and disdainful of best practices in public decision-making."[7] The editorial went on to state that Boyd's actions were "appalling", an "end run around the public," whether "the bypass is the best solution for the public or not, the manner in which this step was taken is contemptuous in the extreme" and amounted to an "act of contempt for the public" as well as for "best practices of public leadership."[7 - A few things here. Unprecedented? Editorials for and against the bypass are written everyday. Thats bias. Conservative? The daily progress is a democratic mouthpiece. Why are you quoting one editorial against it when there are hundreds for? Thats bias.
• 10.Despite his earlier promise to not seek a second term- He never promised anything, your being bias.

You also take out all the current material on the Western bypass citizens committe formed last week, probably because it hurts his opponent that he created it. You are being as bias as they come I am sorry.

Reverting your changes once again. I have contacted an administrator and will file a dispute form if needed, especially now that I have systematically laid out your textual bias.

Best, Escytherdon (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

1. He has been widely dubbed "Friend of Developers" Boyd.
2. The source says "As of now, however, he’s not anticipating a third run." If you would like, we can change that wording to something along the lines of "despite signaling that he did not anticipate running for a third term.."
3. You're right, alleged is probably not the right word. I will fix this.
4. Sure, feel free to add in his committee assignments again, but add it to the ORIGINAL text, don't make wholesale changes to EVERYTHING. While you're at it, maybe add the committee assignments to Ann Mallek's page as well?
5. That's fine- we can remove "friend," I am sure you will be fine with including that Wendell Woods donates to Boyd's campaigns though, right?
6. Arguing by assertion? Not gonna cut it.
7. Do you have any sources that state that the current bypass plan is fundamentally different from the one Taxpayers for Common Sense reviewed? This source sure doesn't seem to indicate that.
8. I would argue that there are plenty of sources for the statement, we can attribute it if it would make you happy though.
9. Please point out another editorial in the daily progress condemning a conservative body in such strong words. Come on, you know better than to argue that the Daily Progress, owned by Media General which has Eric Cantor's wife on its board is Democratic.
10. See above.

Sorry-you are being disingenuous. Feel free to make additions to original text, but do not go around removing sections wholesale because you don't like it or agree with it. I am assuming good faith and engaging with you, and making changes where the need is pointed out, please make changes to the original text rather than simply making wholesale changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.84.1 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this after I reverted the page.

• 1.Where has he been dubbed this? Cite your sources, Wikipedia does not go on hearsay or rumor.
• 2. Yes that would be neutral in tone, far better than 'he committed to'.
• 3. Thank you, alleged makes it sound as if he claimed.
• 4. I will add the committee assignments then.
• 5. When has Wendell Wood contributed to Boyds campaigns? Not a single record of that is on VPAP
• 6. The Hollymead section contains misrepresentations which we can go further into detail with.
• 7. First, I cannot find the actual source for the Taxpayers report, can you as it is not cited. Secondly, VDOT has said that the Northern Terminus is being re-done to reflect the Forest Lakes and Hollymead construction. If changing a third of the project is not a major renovation I am not sure what is.
• 8. Yes, because for every person unhappy with the Bypass there are ten who are in favor. No conclusive studies have been done one way or another so it is disingenuous to try and state such. Neither of us could put that people are happy or unhappy with it.
• 9.The Daily Progress caters to its crown, and that crowd is a liberal base brought by the University. Whether the ideaological views of its owners are present or not, they are still a business and have to reflect their readership. Do we decide what gets posted onto Wikipedia based on the strong words of an editorial now? People who are against anything that is moving forward will be angry and use harsh words, whereas those in support will be much calmer and clear-headed. I fail to see how the harshness of the words from some unknown editorial out of hundreds merits an entire section.

As far as taking out sections, is that not what you have done with the biography, committe assignments, Northern terminus citizens committee, past election history, and non profit work? Those things were added on to the article but you are removing them wholesale. 24.127.51.156 (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, fine- you want to know why the biography and non-profit service cannot be left in the article? See WP:COPYVIO. The northern terminus citizens committee section was dripping with bias. The past electoral history has been readded; it was just hard to do when you make wholesale changes to the article, much of which simply cannot be included (ie., copyvio). Also, even if it wasn't copy vio, it would be a WP:SPS.

I see you are making changes yet again. I will give you an hour to make the changes and remove the bias and include the information provided in my revisions before I delete. Cheers.

24.127.51.156 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon19:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, you do not own this article, so you cannot "give me" time, neither can you give me a deadline. Feel free to add in your revisions to the longstanding previous version. You were bold and made changes, you were reverted. Now its time to stop reverting back to your new version and discuss and make changes to the previous one as necessary in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.226.34 (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You can call me bold however many times you want, but the simple fact so far is that you have only begun to work with me on any of these issues. Your immediate reaction was to delete everything, not discuss. The page has been up for months and you swoop in and decide it needs to be changed. Not only that, but you do not even do the courtesy of signing in, simply making yourself an anonymous IP address making bias statements where I have tried to be neutral. It may not be 'my' page, but it was my research and facts that you are so selectively choosing in an effort to slander a politician.

It is not 'your' page either, and you have no business reverting solid research back to a bias tone (which was created by an account that has been banned I might add). I have to wonder if A. that was your account banned and thats why you cannot sign in and/or B. It isnt YOUR editorial you are so keen on citing. You say Cvillopedia is not a valid source (a community created wiki) and yet you cite some unknown editorial by an unknown person...interesting. Escytherdon (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon21:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop with the unsupported accusations. I am not required to create an account. I find it amusing that you are insisting on adding WP:COPYVIO to the article while comparing an editorial published by The Daily Progress with a community wiki. Again-if you have specific items you want to challenge, start a section to discuss it. If you want to make an ADDITION-feel free, but please make sure it is neutral and not copy pasted directly from the candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.43.220 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No accusations here, simply speculating. I have challenged your items in the following list. You do not have to sign in, but as I said it is common COURTESY. If your going to cite taxpayers for common sense make sure that a. it is for the current project not the old one and b. you link to their actual report. You cannot say that there is a lot of citizen opposition to the project and link to a closed facebook page. This is almost a bad a source as your editorial. Editorial reference is just plain silly. You devote an entire paragraph of a bio to some random person writing to their local newspaper and ranting. How is that a legitimate news source? Listing the elections from most recent down makes it easier to read Please give mrs. Neff’s full title. Your writing about his 2010 congressional run about abolishment is false, please read the article. He states that it should be a state run organization, not federal. Your edit makes it sound as though he said it should be gone forever. You are flat out lying in the Hollymead controversy stating that Wendell wood is Boyds largest contributor. In fact, he has NEVER contributed to any of his campaigns and I do not even believe he is a part of the organization you are referencing. That being said I left the rest of your edits.

Escytherdon (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I will respond in more detail this evening. The editorial is attributed so it is entirely appropriate. If I cited taxpayers for common sense directly, it would be a primary source, while currently, citing the hook is a secondary source-which wikipedia prefers. What is Mrs. Neff's full title? I don't know her full title, feel free to add it if you know.. I may have time to find it later. I haven't read the article about 2010 abolishment-feel free to challenge the source in a new section here. Instead of making wholesale edits-please make a specific section for each specific change. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.66.52 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)