Talk:Deborah J. Glick

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography: Politics and Government

	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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

New York City High‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vandalism by The Vandal JamesMLane and Other Partisan Censors

Just stop already, you've totally discredited yourselves, you are nothing more than establishment schills who want to stifle anyone who disagrees with you and get free advertising for your political allies on Wikipedia.

You don't own Wikipedia, get over it. Nicolas Leobold New York, N.Y. nleobold@msn.com Constituent/Victim of Deborah Glick and the rest of The NY Gov't Authoritarians

As I stated in my edit summary, the applicable principles here include WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:BLP. More important is that the generalized criticisms you've included aren't appropriate to the Glick bio article. They're simply expressions of libertarian discontent with liberal Democrats in general. That's not what Wikipedia is for. JamesMLane t c 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are not pov, nor are they in main bio section, these are universally acknowledged criticisms of Glick by her libertarian/free market critics. Other criticisms by people from different parties/philosophies are welcomed, such as Green Party, Constitution Party, etc., even Communist Party. Criticisms sections are used for politician bios on Wikipedia all the time, Glick is not exempt from opposing viewpoints, and Wikipedia is not free propaganda or advertising for her, although I am aware that you intend it to be. You guys are probably partisan dirty trick artists from the DP and you get paid to troll, ambush and character assassinate all over the net. Won't work here, since you can't control Wikipedia, you can't buy it, and you can't stop people from restoring your vandalism. Oh, and they're not generalized criticisms, they're quite specific. Why don't you stop the lies already. Nicolas Leobold

Re political leanings, as stated by another editor, "political leanings don't precede such basic bio facts as state, office, and party." Dogru144 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right on

This is not a private blog. I have removed the POV, FreeRepublic, NewsMax type edits. This is not RandPedia. Dogru144 00:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on. This is not DemoratPedia, either, nor is it AuthoriPedia. It's unfortunate you're afraid of the truth and opposing viewpoints, but then all "progressive" Democrats are afraid of that, that's what makes you socialists and authoritarians. Please Stop the Censorship and Vandalizing. Thanks, Nicolas Leobold

Adding Image

original, with Scott Stringer
trimmed to focus on Ms. Glick

I was able to find an image on Flickr the photographer of which graciously put it under CC-BY-SA for our use. I trimmed it to focus on Ms. Glick, but perhaps someone else could do a better job. I uploaded both versions to Commons just in case. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I've protected the page because of the slow edit war. Nleobold, you need to find reliable sources for any criticism, and you need to stick closely to what the sources say when you write it up. The passage you were adding looked like personal opinion. Please discuss here what you want to add, and say who your sources are. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite protection because of a few edits by a single editor seems a bit much. The article has only been edited a total of 7 times in the past week. I second the discuss business, but can we try it without the protection for a little more, please? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

The reason I protected was because it's a BLP issue. I'm happy to unprotect so long as the BLP issues stay off the page; perhaps Nleobold could give an assurance that the criticism section won't be restored without sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nleobold has in the past given little indication of willingness to engage in genuine dialog, and has also displayed little interest in adhering to Wikipedia rules. A short block imposed by ElinorD did not succeed in altering this user's conduct. I dislike protection, though. Without protection, the most likely outcome is that Nleobold will continue to make these improper edits, they will continue to be reverted, and Nleobold will eventually decide that he's wasting his time and will go away (or will concentrate on his editing of Sam Sloan -- some of his edits there look dubious to me but I don't have the time to get into that article). JamesMLane t c 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected after AnonEMouse's request. We'll see what happens when Nleobold returns. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the conduct of Nleobold. He has been on a one-man campaign to use this bio article and that of Congressman Jerrold Nadler as politically-charged blogs. He has been at this for at least a month, not for just a few edits. Dogru144 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nleobold has returned and has resumed his campaign of repeatedly reverting to his preferred version, without addressing the issues that other editors have raised. He persists in deleting the photo. He persists in adding an unsourced passage that doesn't even relate to Glick particularly (it's more like "Some Issues on Which Libertarians Disagree with Liberal Democrats"). JamesMLane t c 12:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him a final warning. ElinorD (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deborah J. Glick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131218082901/http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/general/2010Assembly.pdf to http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/general/2010Assembly.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]