Talk:Larry Bucshon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Where's the Discussion?

Flatterworld and Arbor832466 are in the process of censoring the Wikipedia articles of all Republican Congressional candidates 25 days before an election. It is partisan hack work of the worst kind. I reverted the re-direct.--InaMaka (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it's nothing of the sort, as I explained in the Discussion about the merge request. Please stop making up your 'facts'. An editor now blocked created a five-second fluff article consisting of material cherry-picked from the candidate's own campaign site, as he did for lots and lots of Republican candidates. It did NOT include any non-partisan information, such as links to Project Vote Smart, Open Secrets or the FEC. It was the equivalent of a campaign brochure. The candidates were (and are) not notable for anything other than the event (the election). I wasted HOURS AND HOURS fixing up quite a few of these junk articles, at which point I decided there had to be a better way. He was the one doing the last-minute partisan hack work, not me. As I also said in the merge Discussion about this particular article, I renamed the article (such as it was) so that anyone interested in creating a real article would have something to start with. Which you did - and I note it took you a whole lot of editing to do that, proving my point that it was junk earlier. You also deleted the Merge request, which I have restored as he's still only notable in connection with the election. As I keep saying, tempers are running hot right now, and people like you are making off-the-wall claims based on your own paranoid fantasies. That really needs to stop. Flatterworld (talk)
See United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#District 13 for an example of a merge from a (decently written yet still non-notable) candidate article (a DEMOCRAT you will note) to the event (election) article. Flatterworld (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
(1) You know that you are not to engage in personal attacks and calling me "paranoid" is way, way inappropriate. Please stop. You should know better.--InaMaka (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
(2) You are wrong concerning the article about Dr. Bucshon. I'm going by a previous decision. Stephene Moore does not qualify because she is a minimum wage employee at a university who has NEVER held elected office, is running far, far behind in the polls, and there is virtually ZERO coverage of her in the media--far, far less than the media coverage of Bucshon (and the only coverage there exists is collateral election coverage). However, the motion to have her article deleted failed. If Moore is qualified, as the decision states, then Dr. Bucshon qualifies for an article.--InaMaka (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
(3) The vast majority of articles you want to deep six do deserve it, but there are a few (Bucshon, Reed, and Gosar) that meet the requirements based upon the extensive media coverage of them. That's a fact and that decision (qualification) MUST be discussed by the whole group of editors, not just decided by fiat by you or a brand new editor (Arbor832466).--InaMaka (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
(4) You are right that the Dr. Bucshon article did require a ton of work. I understand the concerns that you had about the editing of Jerzykydd, the vast majority of the articles that Jerzykydd slapped together were fluff pieces, but just because the majority of the articles that editor created were not qualified does NOT in anyway mean that either you or Arbor832466 can go eliminating ALL challengers articles. And the Bucshon article is a perfect example of you getting carried away in deleting articles. There is tons of information on Dr. Bucshon. And based upon the extensive media coverage of him and the fact that he is running way ahead in the polls clearly makes him qualified for an article---way, way, way, way more qualified than Ms. Moore, who is a minimum wage employee at a university.--InaMaka (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You obviously didn't bother checking out any of the claims you're making, especially as I have not deleted ANY articles, and only merged one. Period. Your statement on Stephene Moore is also wrong. As you don't seem interested in assuming good faith on anyone else's part, and continue to make wild claims while denying the facts, I don't believe 'paranoid' is out of line. For that reason, I will no longer engage in any more discussion with you. Good day to you. Flatterworld (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, InaMaka. Thanks for flagging this discussion for me. Because of the accusatory, hysterical, and, yes, paranoid tone of your comments, I won't be directly engaging with you further. I would rather spend the limited time I have available improving Wikipedia. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resume template

Examples: It's not encyclopedic to mention where he met his wife when there's no relevance to anything else, esp. by saying 'During his service' which could mean just about anything and therefore reads suspicious like a cut-and-paste taken out of context. Phrases such as 'small town of' and 'lifelong Democrat' are also not encyclopedic. iow, the article still reads like an extension of his campaign site. (We also avoid listing children's names for reasons of privacy, btw, particularly if they're young.) And to answer your edit summary comment: no, it's not my job to run around and fix thousands of campaign articles simply because you don't feel like it. If you can't be bothered to create a proper article, then it's likely to be marked for improvement, merger, or deletion. That's how it works. Flatterworld (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Time permitting, I'm going through all of the candidate pages and redirecting where the person fails the politician and GNG guidelines. This one is extremely borderline at the moment...there are reliable source mentions, but in a weak name-dropping kid of way. But he does have an almost double-digit lead on his opponent I see today, so perhaps this particular article can slide til election day. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Larry Bucshon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Larry Bucshon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Bucshon/Archive_1&oldid=1146975664"