Talk:Doug Gansler

Untitled
Fritzschantz appears to be a sole-purpose user, who deletes any unfavorable information from the Doug Gansler page. I have reverted the most recent edit, and submit the issue for discussion here, whether the Attorney General's public censure by Maryland's highest court, is appropriate for his entry. I believe it is notable because it is fairly unusual for a state's attorney to be censured, and because was the first. --Athoughtforyou (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only reference you have is a dry pdf file. If the event is notable, then it would be covered in newspapers, magazines, websites that are reliable sources, etc.  Unless you find sources like that, I think it should be removed.
 * Also, the editor removing it is not committing vandalism, as you indicated in your edit summary. It is best practice to leave an edit summary, or bring it to talk, but it's not vandalism.


 * Furthermore, if Fritzschantz is a "sole-purpose user" then what are you? What else have you edited besides this page in the past 2+ years?  There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but it's weird that you're pointing it out --CutOffTies (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That second footnote takes you to BNET, which is described as a CBS News business network. That seems pretty reliable.  If anything, I need to figure out how to get the footnote back at the bottom.  Secondly, I'm not a frequent editor on these pages, but I left an edit summary for why I put the material back in, and Fritzschantz just deleted it again with no edit summary and without taking it to the discussion page.  I've done both.  In reading the edit war and vandalism policies I thought that repeated deletions without discussion amounted to vandalism.  In any case, I'll add the BNET footnote, and consider views on whether this source is reliable.--Athoughtforyou (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean now. It looks like Fritz removed the source. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20031113/ai_n10058359/. When that source is put back in (if you need help let me know), I believe the content should certainly stay.


 * Some guidelines you may want to read:
 * Referencing for beginners
 * wp:revert
 * wp:vandalism
 * --CutOffTies (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Campaign ad?
This article reads like one long campaign advertisement for Doug Gansler--glowing and effusive.

It doesn't seem objective at all. Who wrote it? His staffers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.61.129 (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. This reads like a campaign issue statement. I have added the advert template to the top.Earlopogous 04:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So, If everyone agrees that this is an un-paid-for, illegal campaign ad, why is it still up? (I can't get any Wiki-ers to fix my login, but my username is FutureImperfect). I'm reporting it to noticeboard for Bios of Living Persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.124.34 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)