Talk:Ron Saxton

Conflict of Interest Campaigns
I urge those who are part of a campaign not to edit on Wikipedia. This is a conflict of interest and against the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. Any POV edits will be reverted by myself or other editors. Davidpdx 12:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Expanding this article
There is some work that could be done on this article. First, the section on the 2002 Governor's race can be expanded and set up as a seperate section like the 2006 race. Also there has been a lot of flap about Saxton's alledged connections with Neil Goldschmidt (whether they are true and to what extent I'm not sure). Also he has take a lot of flap about his connections with the Oregonian (the newspaper). These are just some ideas of things that can be looked into. Davidpdx 07:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You apparently do not understand the NPOV policy. The link may stay. --Liface 23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree with Liface on this one. Your statement, "I deleted "Saxton Watch," because it is unfair to the Saxton campaign" makes me thing that you are directly involved in the campaign. If this is true, you should not be editing the Saxton article or any other article having to do with the Governor's race in Oregon.


 * I would encourage you to take a look at the NPOV policy and read it carefully. Please do not remove the link again. Davidpdx 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of Line!
That comment was COMPLETED out of line, SIR! I deleted the “Saxton Watch,” because it is unfair to the Saxton campaign. I certainly do NOT work for him, but I am offended when people violate the NPOV agreement. This is not the first time you have been accused of being belligerent or outlandish. You certainly do not own Wikipedia, and your idle threats are inexcusable. Saxton’s opponent, Ted Kulongoski, has no such site criticizing him on Wikipedia. In fact, the “Saxton Watch” site leads right to the Democratic Party’s webpage. You have broken the NPOV and I call on you to delete the “Saxton Watch” link. Your assumptions are offensive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You apparently do not understand the NPOV policy. The link may stay. --Liface 23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree with Liface on this one. Your statement, "I deleted "Saxton Watch," because it is unfair to the Saxton campaign" makes me thing that you are directly involved in the campaign. If this is true, you should not be editing the Saxton article or any other article having to do with the Governor's race in Oregon.


 * I would encourage you to take a look at the NPOV policy and read it carefully. Please do not remove the link again. Davidpdx 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove this paragraph. It needs to remain as an archieve of the conversation that took place. Davidpdx 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree the link may be unfair, it does not violate NPOV! Stop erasing it. Thank you for catching this David. If it gets erased again, please request a lock from admin. If user complies, spare her/him the name. unsigned by User:ThomasRICHARDSON
 * Strange, I could swear I just re-added it but Davidpdx beat me to it I guess. Another win for the manic watchlist hawks! --Liface 06:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I am not sure if the person that removed it registered or this is someone diffrent. In any event I have left a message on their talk page. We seem to be getting some REALLY weird edits on this article. My guess is it's going to get even worse as we approach election day. Davidpdx 08:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a removal of a NPOV violation a "really wierd" edit. Nicktaylor137 03:41pm 7 September 2006 (PST)
 * Look at the definition of NPOV again. It's not a NPOV violation. --Liface 01:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nick, that link has been removed several times by (supposedly) diffrent people. Also there has been quite a bit of vandalism going on that Liface and I have reverted, including some crackpot posting a link to a site that claims Saxton has down syndrome. As I said on your page, if you have a point, then make it. Wikipedia rules allow links to sites critical of the person who has an article about them here. Davidpdx 08:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Prostitute/Meth Comment Removed
I removed the following comment:


 * Although rumors that he regularly frequents a male prostitute have circulated, there is no hard evidence that he still buys methamphetamines.

Comment was added by an anonymous coward (65.100.48.225). []. This slander/libel is utterly ridiculous, and in violation of Wikipedia policies. Keep up the vandalism, and I'll report your IP to the Mt. Hood Community College.Kythri 21:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Link Rot and Offline Sources
This older article has few verifiable sources today. It references many dead URLs and what appear to be non-online newspaper sources. I think it's clearly a notable biography, though. QuintinK (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)