Talk:Ron Estes

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.treasurer.state.ks.us/prodweb/about_us/meet-ron-estes.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. January ( talk ) 13:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletions of reliably sourced information
“That forum took place at Friends University, and I moderated it, and know exactly what was said about abortion that night, because I was the one who asked the candidates the questions,” (the debate moderator) Fox wrote. “Thompson is pro-choice. But there was nothing – NOTHING – said that evening, by anyone, about “late-term abortions” or “sex-selective abortions.” From the cited source: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article143553074.html#storylink=cpy ...and from the moderator's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/russell.a.fox.9/posts/10158436576790291 Activist (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SlackerDelphi has repeatedly deleted my edits, recommending that differences of opinion be dealt with on the TALK page. However "SD" has not used the TALK page at all, but has autonomously and continuously made inappropriate reverts of well supported edits. Activist (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SlackerDelphi objects to the word "finally" in describing the state Democratic party's reluctance to support Thompson's campaign, then finally and reluctantly making a token contribution. In the RSS which I quoted, there's the following text: "When his campaign asked the state Democratic Party to fund a mailer, it was turned down, later investing just $3,000." Activist (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The RS you quote does not use the words, "finally and reluctantly". Those words are yours and yours alone. You did not edit it with the word "finally" by itself you edited it with the words "finally and reluctantly", words that are not in the RS. The RS does not support your wording. Your wording is wrong.  It is not supported.  Please stop putting it in the article.  Your wording violates the principal of NPOV. If you want to use the phrase, "investing just $3,000" then your RS supports that wording, but it does not support your wording.  You are replacing the wording the RS you directly quote above with your opinionated wording and that choice violates the NPOV principal.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SlackerDelphi objects to the use of the word "venomous," but in fact it's a direct quote from the cited NY Times article: "But then the House Republican campaign arm released a venomous ad accusing Mr. Thompson of favoring abortion rights for gender selection." It appears that SlackerDelphi objects to content as supposedly being unsourced, when "SD" in fact apparently neglects to read the cited source. Activist (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SlackerDelph removes a citation of the second article by the same author in the same publication, then inappropriately and haphazardly criticizes my edit not realizing that "SD" has conflated the two different stories, and merges them, consequently removing the source for part of the text. 01:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, most of the stuff that you are putting into this article is about Thompson. The article is not about Thompson, it is about Estes.  There is way, way too much information about Thompson.  If you want to write an article about Thompson then I would encourage you to work on that article.  I'm not sure Thompson is notable; however, if he is notable then you can write all kinds of things about what money Thompson got from the Kansas Democrats and how much money he got from DCCC, etc. I don't think any of it is relevant to Estes' article.  I think I will be trimming down the off topic information.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Slacker Delphi account was finally blocked for a years-long history of sock puppetry under different user names, eight weeks ago. This month, an IPN editor geolocated in Wichita removed the valid descriptor word "discredited" from the allegation that Planned Parenthood had sold fetal body parts for profit, a charge Estes asserted in a debate with his democratic opponent, James Thompson. Activist (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Swearing In for Congress
Just FYI, Estes told The Wichita Eagle that he'll be sworn in on April 25... see here. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing. I did a quick search but did not see a swearing in date, but I did know that it hasn't happened yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the 25th is when they come back from their 2-week recess... at least according to the House's calendar. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 18:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Swearing in does not make him a Member of Congress. His election does.  His service begins on the election date.—GoldRingChip 14:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you're right about the swearing in, but that's not when the term starts. They are different issues. —GoldRingChip 03:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. They may start once they're elected, but they can officially fulfill their duties in Washington until they are sworn in. I think you need to bring this issue up at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. We're not going to do one thing in one article and another in the others. Let's learn to be consistent. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 04:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm starting the research, but will not be able to finish it now. I can't definitely say, one-way-or-the-other, where the rules come down on Oath-vs.-Election/Appointment.  You're welcome to add to what I've started and maybe we can build a consensus!  See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress.—GoldRingChip 13:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at, the term begins the day of the election. Members of the House like Bradley Byrne also have the "assumed office" date the day the won the election. I think it should be changed to April 11. JocularJellyfish (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

voting 3-22-24
did you support today's budget 2600:100A:B03A:8C82:48F6:61C3:4599:BF9E (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)