User talk:John Broughton/Archive 2 September 2006 - November 2006

Brown-Henderson

Is she the daughter of the plantiff or the plaintiff? I have not lived in Kansas in 15 years, but I seem to remember that she is the plaintiff, she was the little girl. Her mother worked with the attorneys on the case, but she was the little girl denied access. I believe that I have that correct. The girl would be the only person who would have standing in a court of law to sue. That's why I fairly sure that she was the plaintiff, not the daughter of the plaintiff.--Getaway 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just quoting from the article. And I'm not a lawyer. But generally (a) a minor cannot sue, and (b) a minor's mother clearly would have standing since she has a significant interest in getting a good education for her child. Unless you have another source, I think you should leave the article's wording as is. John Broughton 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply asked a simple, civilized question. No need for the hysterics.--Getaway 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to suggest hysterics where there are none, either. Just sayin'. Nortelrye 06:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Dear John: Thanks for the advice re my editing and categorizing. I will try to improve to meet accepted Wiki standards. Littlemo 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks

Thanks for reverting the deletions to tom feeney's page. http://reddit.com/info/itoo/comments 10:50, 17 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuber eater (talk • contribs)

Moving an article

I did not realize that at all, but figured it out when I saw your comment at WP:RM. I'm glad to have learned something new. Thanks for your help. Skeezix1000 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webb edits

I do not understand why the Women contoversey about Webb was removed and considered Vandalism? I dont see this as vandalism at all but a valid sourced fact. Doug rosenberg 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I will use the summary box in the future. I was not aware of it. Doug rosenberg 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC) You moved the contoversey to the campaign page. Now,I look at the George Allen page and over 1/2 the page consists of controversey associated with the 2006 election campaign. Why don't you apply your same diligence to the George Allen page to clean it up?--Doug rosenberg 20:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'nother election article

I just added Colorado 5th congressional district election, 2006, and also editing out some material from the candidates themselves. There are a number of races I wanted to do, I'm not sure this was the most competitive one, but, whatever. I thought I could whip it off quickly, but, darn, these things, take so long. Oh well, I'm sure there's a ton that can be improved if you want to give it the once over. -- Sholom 15:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and another one: California 11th congressional district election, 2006. -- Sholom 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...two more for today: Nevada 2nd congressional district election, 2006, and Pennsylvania 10th congressional district election, 2006 -- Sholom

...another: Ohio 13th congressional district election, 2006. For this, I was trying something new (back-research into an interesting primary). It took way too long, and I had to stop, and the result looks pretty ugly (including the ref's). -- Sholom 17:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In re Category:Fundraisers

It seemed like a good idea to create a category for fundraisers, given their particular notoriety. I understand your point that every politician raises funds, but that does not necessarily make every politician a professional "fund raiser", I don't think. (Should we add "Professional" to the category name?)

In any event you are free to do what you like, and if you want to recommend it for deletion, I can't stop you.

HOT L Baltimore 13:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for election - wikiproject

In this edit summary you ask that editors "wait until after the early November election". Wikipedia is not a soapbox for hosting blurbs for election candidates. We don't keep articles about candidates during elections and then delete the losers when the elections are over. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and people warrant biographical articles only if they already satisfy our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Gus Bilirakis does, for having already won an election to a state legislature, and that is the correct grounds on which to dispute the proposed deletion (which in fact you beat me to doing). Uncle G 22:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to review some of the AfDs from today, but merely being nominated for Congress does not make one notable. A state legislator supposedly is notable so I believe I nominated some articles in error. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Lemme know when you see candidates for House being nominated for AfD! I was stunned to come back for the weekend and see that Jerry McNerney had been nominated, and had already been decided. Yikes! They wanted to merge it in with California 11th congressional district election, 2006 -- an article I would not have written had I known it'd be used as leverage to remove Jerry McNerney's article! In any event, perhaps we need to start a push to change Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies to be much more inclusive of US House candidates. Thoughts? (BTW, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell (Second nomination).) -- Sholom 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. In the meantime, let's make a plan for my suggestion above (we need to start a push to change Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies to be much more inclusive of US House candidates.). Perhaps we ought to start after the elections, and we can notify all those who have been voting "keep" on folks like Diane Farrell that the issue is being raised. Wouldn't it be great for there to be an official policy along the lines of "A major party nominee in any US Senate race, or in any House race where the race is considered competitive or notable is considered notable for inclusion of biographies"? (Yeah, yeah, we'd still have to define "competitive and notable", but you get the idea). Thoughts? (BTW, you wrote "did a bunch of prods to candidates" -- what's "prod"?) -- Sholom 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.. also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Taylor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Russell (Florida politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Richard Chema, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Henley. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Ross (politician). Man, those guys are relentless. Wouldn't it be awesome if they devoted just half that time into improving/writing articles, instead of calling for deletions? -- Sholom 17:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answering various parts of your last message:

I understand not putting energy into supporting congressional Candidates who are sacrificial lambs. It's hard for me to do, too, although I do tend to be an inclusionist and since "WP is not paper" see no harm in including them.
As for your five step plan I have a few comments:
- It is possible that perhaps I can whip up a little program that would create code -- from a template -- for individual house races in 2008
- Are you thinking along the lines of an article for each race? Or just those potentially competitive or significant? The former seems like a lot of work, but the latter is completely unpredictable. Even races thought to be blow-outs can suddenly turn competitive (as we have certainly seen this year). I'd like to hear your thoughts on this
- In parallel with this, I'd like to see a bit of time developing a really top-notch template, which will be useful (obviously) no matter which direction we go. We can cruise the current articles, and pick the best of the best from them.

-- Sholom 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedits on the three election articles. BTW, would you mind checking out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Simon -- Sholom 14:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice plan you outlined on my page. Thorough and comprehensive. I only have two slight tweak-ideas.

You wrote: Then slap redirects on the articles on challengers (if of questionable notability) so that there is no need for AfDs for these. (Such AfDs are bad precedent, in general a waste of time regardless of outcome, and successful AfDs could kill off source info.) I tend towards inclusionism, so, while I generally agree with your statement, I would also like to see if we could get a specific proposal in WP:C&E to cut off those AfD's.
As I wrote above, I would slightly expand your definition of notable races. I wrote earlier (cut if from above and put it here, to reduce redundancy): the list of competitive and/or notable races ought to (imho) include races for which the primary was the main race. There have been races where all the action was in the competitive primaries (e.g., in Harold Ford's old seat (where Ford's cousin, or nephew, lost and is running as an independent; Major Owens's old seat in NYC, etc.).

Again -- nice job! -- Sholom 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you...

... John Broughton? ---J.S (t|c) 22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually referring to the subject of the article "John Broughton"... Just wondering if your the same person. ---J.S (t|c) 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gerlach, Lois Murphy and the PA-6 campaign

I just created a PA-6 election page (partly to deal with an edit-war with an anon-IP user ('Dan') who's deleted the ARMPAC info from the Gerlach page 6 times now).

Perhaps I could impose on you (as at least a somewhat uninvolved 3rd party) to put an appropriate summary paragraph in the Gerlach and Murphy pages for the '06 campaign. If I re-add anything at all to the Gerlach page I'm sure 'Dan' will delete it again; he's ignored a Third Opinion.

Thanks! jesup 06:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John; excellent edits on the Gerlach page (it's more informative now) (and also PA-6 and Murphy edits). I'm trying to take the ball and run with it to continue the improvements. jesup 14:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Michele Bachmann

Very well said, thank you. I was about to post, but I realized that nothing more need be said. Impressively diplomatic and patient. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive

User talk:John Broughton/United States House elections, 2006. Wow! Super impressive! 207.69.136.204 06:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3R whatever thing

Ok, I messed up, I'm new to wikipedia, and I didn't know. I did however add a talk page. It also appears that I only reverted twice, and I added talk pages and referenced why in each one. You really don't have to make such a big deal over it, we're all just trying to get the facts straight here please don't be so rude in the future. As for the content, I will be adding Glenda Parker to the lead in to serve neutrality. These are pages about a person and not just the race. In this case, since there are only three candidates (as opposed to 7 or 8 in others), I guess that neutrality is served, but not as well as removing the candidates. Anyways, further dicussion can be on the talk page.

I saw the Gail Parker objection in talk, so I didn't do it. Thanks for the direction to signing posts.

Scarborough article

In your vote to redirect in the Klausutis article AfD, you suggested a paragraph in the Joe Scarborough article would suffice. Now there is an edit war in that article over whether her name can be mentioned, or if she must be an anonymous staffer. Just wondered what your views were on that. Thanks. Edison 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my talk page

Thanks for the tips, they make sense. I have lately been lurking on pages with enough controversy that any edits are immediately reverted if not accompanied with a :talk explanation, thus my extended comments. Anyway, I take your tips into account, and thanks for the heads up. 01:07, 31 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperJerms (talk • contribs)

Clint Curtis

John,

Do you have time to look at the Clint Curtis page over the next week or so? I've been working with an anonymous user to try to balance the page, but we're kind of going at it hammer and tongs, so a fresh viewpoint might be helpful. Thanks, TheronJ 14:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Administrator abuses (aka Clint Curtis redux)

John,

TheronJ has repeatedly been vandalizing the Clint Curtis page, including the deletion of well cited sentences, paragraphs, the insertion of obvious bias (including the summary of a Wired news article that was completly skewed to slander Curtis's biography). Today he deleted quotes and citations from the Orlando Sentinel.

If you do an intestigation, he is a political activist that vandalizes negativly the profiles of Democrats by deleting information that can be considered positive and adds negative content and does exactly the opposite to Republican profiles. TheronJ insists that this is "balance." If you look on the Curtis page, you will see that Tom Feeney's response to Curtis's allegations has been twice as long as the section that describes the allegations. Under a campaign issues section, he adds Feeney's response to Curtis. It is wrong because the issues do not mention Feeney at all. Not only do these NOT reflect balance, it is a serious violation of Wikipedia's standards that requires action.

TheronJ is abusing his power as a Wiki manager and has had repeated warnings in the discussion page of Clint Curtis and now his user talk page. These flagerant abuses deligitimize Wikipedia and places it in a difficult position of dealing with slander against a living person.

Please take whatever action you can to take see that these abuses no longer continue.

Thank you.

131.94.253.123 22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just another editor here, not an administrator. But for starters, I would suggest that you register for an account (that is, get a user name). It's hard to respond on your user page when you apparently use a dial-up (based on the above being your one and only posting with that IP address). More importantly, you will have more credibility as a named user than as an anonymous IP. Also, to quibble, it's libel, not slander (slander is spoken, libel is written).

I've already promised (unenthusiastically) to look at the page, and I will do so. I'll start with WP:BLP, since there are strong policies against posting negative information that does not comply with WP:RS, and I'll look at compliance with other procedures such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. You might want to read up on WP:CIVIL and keep the point of your discussions to the article's content, as aggravating as you might find the behavior of others.

Finally, one or both of you might want to consider the processes described at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, if you've not already done so. John Broughton | Talk 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Weller

Thanks for your message. I find your deletion of the external links to be a clear violation of NPOV and will continue to replace them accordingly. — goethean ॐ 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry McNerney Quit West Point in Protest of Vietnam War

John, in your McNerney article, you state that McNerney quit West Point in protest of Vietnam War. I spoke with McNerney and he says he did not quit in protest. What background material can you share regarding this point? I am a graduate of West Point and spent 21 years on active duty. I am also a prior President of the West Point Society of Silicon Valley. This background information would help in determining if McNerney is another protester of Vietnam similar to John Kerry. Appreciate any info. 19:47, 4 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.159.50 (talk • contribs)

Note: I'm copying this comment/question to Talk:Jerry McNerney and posting my response there. John Broughton | Talk 21:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Page

Hi! Just wanted to say thanks for helping to keep the United States Senate Page article up to date. eric 22:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works great then, as I will be off-line for a few days starting friday eric 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Deluge of 2006

Way to be pro-active! Nice job.

A few quick random thoughts on the subject:

The media may end up coining a different phrase regarding what happened, we'll have to see.
Part of the GOP problem is that the right wing is going too far to the right. I can think of two districts (C0-? and AZ-08) off-hand where the retiring GOP Congressman left a bruising GOP primary, and ended up not not endorsing the winner, because he was so RW and/or the campaign was so nasty. In Kansas, the extremists have such strength in the state party that the chair of the state GOP switched party affiliation and is running as Lt Gov with the popular Dem incumbent gov. (Similarly, I think the Attny general candidate for the Dem party was a major GOP party big-wig). In ID-01 the Club for Growth backed a guy (is his name Sali?) who is so abrasive that his worst criticisms come from GOP state senators.
A note about gerrymandering "Gerrymandering has a flip side, too. To carve out the largest number of partisan districts, officials run the risk of spreading their loyal voters too thin. G. Terry Madonna, who runs the Keystone Poll at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, said that Pennsylvania Republicans who controlled the last round of redistricting “got greedy” — creating some districts with favorable balances too small to survive a wave of discontent....“It’s never exactly static,” said Mr. Cain. “People shift from being independent to moderate or back to independent. Redistricting is good only as long as preferences are stable.”" [1] I read somewhere else that this, apparently is part of the GOP problem in TX-22 (DeLay gave up some "GOP territory" to other districts in order to stengthen the others.

-- Sholom 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject: House Races 2006

OK, boss, what's next? I was up way too late last night to think straight or in an organized fashion today. (On the other hand, if you say "do x y and z", I can do some of x, y, or z today.) May I suggest that you announce a place to start here? Also, FYI, the site I am currently using to get results is http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/XX/index.html, where "XX" is the two-digit postal code of the state. (Also, should a Project Page get started?) -- Sholom 13:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things are, unfortunately, happening too fast for me. I just redid Arizona 1st congressional district election, 2006 to make it look like a real article, but then, it occurred to me: which race should be a template as an example of a great election article? I also updated Arizona 8th congressional district election, 2006 slightly. (I also discovered that it _seems_ like, but I can't tell for sure, that the Arizona primaries are open primaries. If that's the case, how should we report primary results? I reported them two different ways in the 1st and 8th. Please advise on that one). (Also, take a look at Rick Renzi's article, and tell me what you think: (i) should be moved to the election article; (ii) cut completely; or (iii) left as is). Lots of questions, I know: (a) what do you think of Ariz 1st, or 8th, and of all the election articles, which one makes a good template? (b) Was AZ an open primary and if so how to report primary results? (c) How much of Renzi's article to cut/move, etc.? -- Sholom 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we're ahead of the power curve, so whatever you do is fine. -- Good point. Thanks.
In fact, one of the things that I wanted to do is work with you and perhaps a couple of other editors on what a good article looks like, and a set of instructions and other aids to editors to help them get there. So let's start with Arizona. -- I will try and look at the other House race articles I wrote, and tell you which I like the best.
For the Rick Renzi article, I'm not sure what you're looking at -- me neither. Ignore the comment I guess.
As for "open primary", I'm not sure what you mean. No, not Louisana style. But I take that comment back, too. See here where all the primary candidates are lumped together. Very weird. But, never mind.
Finally, please let me know if you see any AfDs on candidates where I've not added my comment already -- yes, and vice versa, too.
My understanding is that the page that was deleted is easily retrievable as a copy in one's user space -- I'll take your word for it!

Thanks! -- Sholom 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a strawman template at User talk:Sholom/Congressional race template. Check it out and hack away at it? -- Sholom 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bunch of edits to the template, BTW, based on the Pennsylvania 6th congressional district election, 2006 article. jesup 20:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as 2008 goes -- somebody has already started a wiki for it! See http://www.2008racetracker.com/ (fwiw, they apparently don't have a "we're not a crystal ball" rule <g>)

Neil Bush mediation

Here's a heads up that you may wish to comment here. --67.101.67.107 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk:Neil Bush/Cabal Mediation, thank you for the heads up. I was an early participant in the debate, but decided that I cared way less than other editors did about how the matter was resolved, and that all viewpoints would be represented even if I wasn't participating. So I've moved on to other things. John Broughton | Talk 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but just figured I'd make sure you didn't miss notification of an opportunity to add stress to your life. =) --67.101.67.107 18:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectwave Technologies, LLC

I am new to Wikipedia; I therefore do not understand the protocol for making edits. I apologize for the unauthorized edits. Having said that; I would hope that Wikipedia would be committed to publishing facts. To that end, I changed the ownersip reference of Perfectwave to represent the facts. There is no articles of incorporation or formation that support the statement that Brent Wilkes owns my company. The fact is that he was a partner in the company until 12/01/2005; at which time I bought out his interest (due to his issues related to Cunningham.) The other fact that was not published its that Perfectwave has and continues to do valuable work for our military in the areas of voice clarity in noisey enviroments, speech recognition, as well as radar and sonar signal processing enhancement.

--Mgelwix 00:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Broughton; Thank you for your guidance. I will follow your suggestions. --Mgelwix 15:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Morrison (Montana politician)

The beginning of a content dispute (and ((WP:3RR]]) at John Morrison (Montana politician) -- see the history, then the talk page. Might need your help. -- Sholom 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vernparade.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vernparade.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangled bank hypothesis

John: I closed this one as redirect to Evolution of sex as I don't consider myself competent to pick and choose the pertinent passages that should go into either article you mentioned. Since Evolution of sex mentions the hypothesis it seems the more apt target, but if you believe there is usefull material to be merged, feel free to do so. ~ trialsanderrors 05:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with your decision, and I'll try to take a bit of time to move info from the old article to Evolution of sex, at a minimum. John Broughton | Talk 16:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Compton

Hi, redlinks are fine :-). Wikipedia:Disambiguation says we shall try to start each entry in the list with a link to the target page. Also your previous contribution had made the disambiguation page looking like an indice, what we shall avoid. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Discussion request

I noticed your remarks on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at WP:DDV, and indicate if it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't). Basically it states that AFD (etc) are not decided by vote count, and in general voting is discouraged (but not forbidde). Thanks. (Radiant) 08:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. However, on the whole I believe you set the standards for this page too high, as compared to other similar pages. (Radiant) 13:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Wolf

I saw you have done some work tidying up the Mike Mendoza page, the Charlie Wolf page (please see previous version if it hasn't already been edited back) is very poor and full of opinionated POV'd unsourced material. If you have time it would be good if you could have a look at that as it's in a worse state than the Mendoza page was. --172.203.161.182 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got your wish!

A + B → C GreenReaper 08:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]