Talk:Dan Helmer

Source removal
We do not remove reliable sources from articles. You may disagree with the sources, but that doesn't matter. You also do not edit according to your own political biases. And to claim that an article from the Washington Post editorial board cannot be included is nonsense. I strongly suggest, if you wish to continue editing on this project that you edit collaboratively, and follow the rules. Suggest you review WP:V. You cited it, but clearly you haven't read it. We also do not edit war. Especially after repeated warnings. X4n6 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) You tried to put a campaign/personal website on this page and argue that's a reliable source for biological information, which it most certainly isn't (WP:V). I'm glad you've apparently conceded that.


 * 2) You tried to use opinion pieces, which are clearly not used for statement of fact, they're used for opinion. WP:Reliable sources states opinion pieces from mainstream newspapers for instance are used with an inline qualifier, i.e. author say this or that and they're not to be asserted as fact, which you attempted to do. Also, in the case of the WaPo, they actually published two pieces, arguing the flier incident was racist and the other arguing it wasn't, yet you only used the former which goes against balance and neutrality.


 * 3) WP:V states verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, and the onus is on the editor who wants the content to argue for its inclusion, it's not the other way around like you're arguing. Furthermore, the sources you put 1) isn't reliable and two aren't supposed to be used to assert fact.


 * 4) attacking people for bad motives i.e. political bias is what people do when they've got nothing left to argue constructively. I care about fair coverage and I've read Wikipedia for decades when I saw statements of fact being sourced from an opinion piece and campaign website that was highly disturbing and something I've never noticed before.


 * 5) you abused rockback as it is for fighting vandalism not for edits in good faith. Particularly bad, when I removed a campaign website, which flies against reliable sourcing.


 * 6) you put Harold Pyon down as Howard Pyon, fortunately that's been corrected now but please proof read content on the article page.


 * 7) I don't see the point of this discussion because the current page is well sourced and balanced. It's not like there's any need for additional sources. Why don't we just leave it be. Unless you really want to argue for campaign websites (which I find absolutely egregious for Wikipedia to have as a statement of fact) and opinion pieces to be added when they're not required for sourcing (plus it complicates balance among other things). You found reliable sources for the content so it really doesn't make sense to continue arguing for it. Let's just leave it be and go on with life.


 * 8) and hopefully that's that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.88.177.19 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's start with the basics. On this project you DO NOT edit war. EVER. Period. That is not a recommendation. It is a POLICY. See WP:EW. You engaged in the most flagrant and repeated abuse of that policy, despite repeated warnings, that I have seen in a very long time. So before I even consider if there is any point in descending down the rabbit hole with you on a point-by-point refutation on how consistently wrong you are, you need to first acknowledge that your edit warring was outrageous and against policy. You even reversed a bot that identified what you were doing was possible vandalism. And the page was protected so you and others like you cannot continue your disruptions. So acknowledge that you understand your behavior was outrageous, wrong and violated policy, and commit to not doing it again. Then we'll see. X4n6 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've never edited JBE's page nor any other on this IP. Ironically, I became a Democrat in part because of Dems like JBE. JBE has been absolutely wonderful for environmental protection in LA and decent on eduction and healthcare as well. So, no I don't appreciate the false connection. If you knew IPs were recycled, you'd not try and link me like that. I don't appreciate you trying to raise the temperature, calling me politically biased, falsely saying I vandalized a page (although I can understand that mistake since we both used this IP apparently), and boldfacing part of your response, which is akin to raising your voice in real life.


 * I've not wanted to escalate anything, in fact I proposed to leave everything as is. The page is concise, well sourced, and balanced. The only things I opposed were using a personal campaign website and an editorial source as statements of fact. The contents have since been sourced with reliable sources (from you I might add). I've got absolutely no reason to edit this page again as it stands. I also don't want to edit. I enjoy reading. I love learning on Wikipedia.


 * We both reverted each other many times, and I do regret that. In retrospect, I'd hope we'd both go about things differently. Personally, I'd have checked the user talk page. I didn't notice it until after the fact. I was going back and forth from reading Wikipedia's varification and reliable sources policies to the article page, which might have been an inopportune time to read them since I wasn't paying attention to the notifications i.e. for user talk page.


 * I do stand by my point on the personal campaign website source and editorials as statement of fact.


 * I don't want to continue this. We could debate policy for sourcing and rehash everything, but the current page seems fine. I'd much rather move on, and leave it as is. It's entirely up to you if you want to debate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.88.177.19 (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Whether you share an IP, multiple IPs or not, you admit it was you who edit warred from that IP. You also don't understand what reliable sources are and how they're used. You were provided with this project's policy on sources, which you clearly ignored, because your premise regarding what sources may be used continues to be false. Your persistent disruptive behavior along with the vandalism from other IPs is what caused the article to be protected. I stopped editing on it, not as a concession, but to report you. Once that is resolved, the article will be restored. X4n6 (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021
Combatting Hunger In 2021, Helmer passed a bill unanimously that extended free meals to 25,000 Virginia families and brought $100 million in federal aid to Virginia. 

Sexual Violence Prevention In 2020, Helmer patroned and passed a bill to combat sexual assault on Virginia’s college campuses by providing amnesty for minor offenses to those who reported sexual assaults. According to the Washington Post, State Senator Tommy Norment created a carve-out for the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) that was included in the bill’s final language. Helmer has said he plans to introduce language that would strip VMI of its exemption. 

Voting Rights n 2021, Helmer passed a bipartisan bill that requires parties that choose not to conduct a primary to make provisions for absentee voting to ensure members of the military, people with disabilities, and students are able to participate in nominating processes. 

Veterans In 2020, Helmer passed a Constitutional amendment that was subsequently approved by voters, the Motor Vehicle Property Tax Exemption for Disabled Veterans Amendment. The amendment removed the tax burden for 100 percent service-disabled veterans of paying personal property taxes on adapted vehicles. 

Clean Energy and Electricity Rates Helmer has led efforts to rein in utilities in Virginia. In 2021, he patroned a bipartisan measure supported by multiple Republicans that sought to rein in the cost of electricity in Virginia. He also was one of the leaders of Virginia’s Clean Economy Act that puts Virginia on the path to 100% clean energy by 2050. In 2021, Helmer stopped a bill that would have left electricity bill payers responsible for funding electric buses. 

The mailer was condemned as antisemitic by the Jewish Community Relations Council. [https://jcouncil.org/statements/jewish-community-outraged-antisemitic-attack-elected-official The American Jewish Committee referred to the mailer as a “recurring antisemitic trope” and demanded that Virginia Republicans apologize immediately. CNN’s Jake Tapper compared the mailer to something out of Der Stürmer. AlexJ07 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Interesting Geek (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)