Talk:Bill Jones (California politician)

RfC
I am responding to the Request for Comment. It seems peculiar that someone should file a RfC when there has been no previous discussion whatsoever. Regarding the specific question -- how much detail should be included on the spamming episode -- it looks about right to me as is. --HK 15:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

- Several efforts have been made by vandals to remove (whitewash) the Bill Jones spamming incidents. Nobody denies it occurred, but some just don't want the matter discussed, for some reason. It's certainly a noteworthy incident in Spamming history--the first major politician to spam the entire world in political campaigns--and defend the practice. Dananderson 18:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the reference to the spamming seems noteworthy and properly sourced -- I'll keep this page on my watchlist. --HK 23:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This was certainly a noteworthy incident and the amount of mention it receives here seems appropriate to me as well (I came for the rfc). Kit 02:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The only problem I had with the spam section is that it was about 90% of the section on the Gubernatorial run. I think (perhaps naively) that people were trying editing down the spam portion to make it commensurate with the rest of the section.  But the problem was that the gubernatorial section was too short and had too few details.  Editors should have expanded the rest of the gubernatorial run section, rather than cutting down the spam section.  Still, I think it’d be helpful to, as always, asssume good faith, rather than call people vandals and accuse them of whitewashing.  I'd also like to thank Dananderson for adding the subsections.  That's something I planned on doing, but he's the one who took the initiative to actually do it.Jim Campbell 01:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At least some of the edits in question weren't edits for space or balance, but complete removal of the spamming incident. That's whitewashing. Efalk (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the section on spamming belongs here, and that it gets the right amount of coverage. Efalk (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Critical site the same as a spam site?
The site http://www.billjonessucks.com/ was removed as a spam link. It's clearly not spam, but I'm hesitant to restore it since I'm not familiar with wikipedia's policies on critical "attack" sites. Efalk (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Jones (California politician). 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/20080929114214/http://www.yoloelections.org/news/snews/PO1131035703 to http://www.yoloelections.org/news/snews/PO1131035703

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Jones (California politician). 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/20051027161513/http://nvri.org/library/cases/Porter_v_Jones/9th%20Cir%20opinion.pdf to http://www.nvri.org/library/cases/Porter_v_Jones/9th%20Cir%20opinion.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)