User talk:John Broughton/Archive 1 September 2005 - August 2006

Welcome
Hey there, . Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Help on the timeline
If you're willing, I'd love you to help hack around on the Jack Abramoff timeline -- right now it's mostly notes... --User At Work 22:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

RI Political Races

 * So should I just start leaving you messages about what I edit next, so you can wikipedia-ize them?
 * Dadip6 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a joke. I noticed that several times (I believe Sheldon Whitehouse as well as Carl Sheeler and perhaps one or two other articles) I would flesh out an article and then you would make them look like actual Wikipedia articles, as opposed to what I had left. We were operating as an inadvertent tag-team, and I was amused. Sorry for confusing you. Dadip6


 * Thanks. I'm a Rhode Island resident, and have never seen him poll above 10 percent (besides in a campaign press release interpreting undecideds to be supporting him) so I was immediately concerned about that tidbit. I've been concerned because I've seen his people continually trying to edit the article and use it as campaign propaganda. That being said, thank you for saving it from deletion, I worked hard collecting some of that information. By the way, I am soon going to be adding an article on Patrick C. Lynch, Rhode Island attorney general, if you would like to edit it. --Dadip6 12:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Patrick C. Lynch page is up.--Dadip6 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thought you might want to check out my comments at Talk:Stephen Laffey. Dadip6 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Marianas Islands
As you know, I've wanted to do an separate article on this for a while. Now this Legal Times article says that "Roger Stillwell, the desk officer for the Mariana Islands at the U.S. Department of the Interior who dealt closely with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is expected to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of false certification, his attorney confirmed Wednesday." I think the time has come! (I'm also going to drop this note to User:Kwh) -- Sholom 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You answered Regarding an article on the scandal in the Marianas Islands - I can help with editing in general and copyediting in particular, but don't expect to have much time to do anything else (i.e., finding sources). Please let me know when you put up a draft page.


 * Hmm, that sounds like how we started the previous joint effort -- sounds good to me. I will attempt to do a data dump (and report back here), before I leave.  Please see Jack Abramoff/CNMI.   I am going on vacation for a week and will have no access on-line until next Wednesday. -- Sholom 12:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thought you'd be interested
... in Articles for deletion/Patrick Murphy (politician), and Candidates_and_elections. -- Sholom 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thelma Drake
As per your suggestion, I created Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006, and moved the campaign stuff out of both of the challengers' pages (Thelma Drake and Phillip Kellam). I think this kind of thing (moving campaign material to separate articles) is a good idea -- I think  -- I'm still getting used to it. -- Sholom 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your sound advice. BTW, the entry's been moved to User:The Thadman/Advocacy Requests. -- Sholom 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Phyllis Busansky article deletion
John, I need your help and some understanding here for a moment. I now believe you guys deleted this article on Phyllis Busansky without an understanding of who she is or the importance of this race. Busansky is the ONLY Democrat in the race and she is FAR from a "lesser candidate." She is one of a very few candidates nationwide given "Red to Blue" status by the DCCC. The contest in FL9 is being watched nationwide. Additionally, her opponent's Wiki page is still up and running. His name is Gus Bilirakis. In the interest of fairness, in the interest of realizing that the article was cleaned up dramatically to conform to the NPOV guidelines and in the interest of doing the right thing, will you guys please stop all this heavy handed stuff and drop the restrictions? People deserve to know about the whole race, not just 1 candidate. If you won't do that, then would you please also delete the Bilirakis article, which also appears to fall under the same areas you guys shut this one down for? Thanks. 20:07, 9 July 2006 JohnTampa


 * I note with interest your preparation of the article Florida 9th congressional district election, 2006, perhaps in response to the above?. This seems to duplicate United States House elections, 2006 to which it seems not to be linked (unless I missed the link which is entirely possible!). It seems to me that the better course is to merge your content into the substantive article - what do you think? BlueValour 22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Edicius and Great Neck Village School
From User talk:Edicius.

It is the same user as User:Kyla and User:Jessica Liao, among other accounts this user has/had. I recognize the user page format, and the subjects and pages that the user contributes to. I once saw that this user was born in January 1988 and a 12th grade student at Great Neck, which means she's 18, but shouldn't be a high school student still (as she states in her user page as of June 2006) unless she failed. --User:Carie 00:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked the question, and I answered it. --User:Carie 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Political article question
A subject that's interested me: Congressional districts. There exists, sometimes, districts which are the same in number only, but that are radically different after a decennial re-drawing. The historical continuity is kinda weird -- not that I have any suggestions. However, an interesting solution to a location-specific situation exists in a past version of Tennessee's 9th congressional district. That is the current congressional district that emcompasses Memphis. Over the years, Memphis has been in the 8th, 9th, and 10th congressional districts. Where does one find the information if one wants to know who has represented Memphis in Congress? In a past version, somebody actually compiled that information. I thought it was pretty cool. Some time later, however, somebody removed it with the comment: "removing 'History of Memphis based distict'. This belongs in a Politics of Memphis article, not here." Clearly (imho) the info ought to be somewhere. But where? I'd be interested in your opinion on the matter. -- Sholom 12:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (PS, thanks for the clarification on 3RR).

Civility on AfD
I am in agreement that the following edit violates WP:CIVIL and constitutes a personal attack. I think that the "Or do you think sarcasm suffices?" might have been edging very slightly toward a provocation, but Calton's response was wholly out of line. I have perceived a similar trend in nominations for deletion, but it would be good if you could demonstrate a good-faith effort to find Republican nominees that have been brought up for deletion. Captainktainer * Talk 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom Davis and United States House Committee on Government Reform
Might you check out Tom Davis and United States House Committee on Government Reform, and their associated talk pages. This guy User:Acham is determined to be a one-man hatchet job against Davis. Which is weird, because I live in Davis' district, and am voting for his opponent. Nevertheless, his edits are hopelessly POV and his responses to my comments are rarely on point. (As far as United States House Committee on Government Reform, I haven't even tried to edit that yet.) Thoughts? -- Sholom 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the issue is still raising its head. I finally vented a little bit.  See Talk:Thomas M. Davis. -- Sholom 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

deleting my stuff
hey man. you deleted some of my edits for no good reason. all of those senators voted against john mccains amendment that would prohibit torture of prisoners. i dont know what 'source' you want, if the United States congress is not good enough for you.

like i said before, wikipedia is being taken over by thought police who dont care about reality.

John E. Sweeney
Hey, nice catch on the deleted sections of John E. Sweeney. You see that article was hit pretty hard by a persistent vandal and I didn't even think to look for stuff that hadn't been caught when I modified the ref formatting. Good job! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Other than the one section which was more like a news item, all I did was reformat how the references look. They were already there - it's just the new format groups them and presents them in a nicer way.  But thanks anyway!  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Estate tax article, IRS cutback
Interesting article, I guess I should apply for work there. Bona Fides 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: social promotion
I have fixed what needed to be fixed. Newcomers mean well but they can mess things up heavily... and this user did this the second time :/ --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 15:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting articles on candidates
I just posted a comment about this on User talk:JChap2007, and then noticed you had as well. You might want to take a look at what I posted, in case you think it's relevant. John Broughton 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up : ) It was informative. - Jc37 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Vowgs
No, I don't know him - I just stuck a tag on his talk page. If you want him to stop doing it, I suggest you report him somewhere - AIAV or WP:RFI perhaps. Stephenb (Talk) 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco Advertising
Hi John. I seriously think that people working for Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia itself must be receiving funding by tobacco companies because the tobacco product pages seem to be getting defended a hell of alot. Why is this? It can't be because of "Wikipedia policy" because that is a load of garbage. The people defending the tobacco product pages are probably working for the tobacco companies (Eg: Moderators and other people that are freely allowed to edit these pages). It is not necessary at all to let tobacco products be advertised on Wikipedia-Not every single article on Wikipedia has an image, so why should tobacco products? Tobacco is an ADDICTIVE product. It causes a huge amount of morbidity and mortality each year, yet Wikipedia doesn't mind being associated with these drug dealers. You should not care about Wikipedia policy, and instead care about the potential saving of peoples lives by stopping the advertising of these products on this website. Gillies corner 01:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't care about Wikipedia policy, he gets blocked. Wikipedia is not a place for a moral crusade, even one that I agree with. Captainktainer * Talk 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

American Hunters and Shooters Association
As per the request for Mediation Cabal mediation, I've added my thoughts to the talk page Talk:American Hunters and Shooters Association. Since there are only two parties in this dispute, I think it's quite possible to resolve everything on the talk page. In any case, I have added what I think is a reasonable compromise position; please respond and let me know if you are happy with this compromise. -- Deville (Talk) 23:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Politicy/Strategy for reporting congressional races, etc
Hey John! First off, many thanks for that link. Very impressive! On another issue, I went to the Cynthia McKinney entry, in order to update from results last night. There's still a ton of info about the campaign. I was a bit reluctant to simply cut it all out. I was wondering your thoughts on the matter. I see three viable options: (a) just excise it; (b) stick the info in Georgia's 4th congressional district; or (c) create a 2006 Ga 4th Election article. (Note: a non-trivial amount will indeed be cut out if options (b) or (c) are chosen). So. . . your thoughts?

I actually have a much larger thought. I was wondering if all congressional election info ought to be in their respective congressional district articlces? FWIW, I have seen it that way for one state, although I can't for the life of me remember which one. -- Sholom 12:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your ideas. And I'd be happy to join in any wikiproject in this regard, as well as helping to implement all that you just suggested to me.  Unfortunately, I'm swamped at work this week, because I'm going away for two weeks starting Sunday and I need to finish up a number of things.  Not sure how much I'll get to before Aug 28. -- Sholom 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Two quick things: (a) I have a first draft of Georgia 4th congressional district election, 2006 up, and took out info from Cynthia McKinney and Hank Johnson; clean up for all three articles are probably needed; (b) that awesome website you pointed me to with all the congressional races disappeared (or, more likely, moved) -- do you know where it went? -- Sholom 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weird. Now it works for me, too.  This morning I was getting redirected somewhere else.  Oh well.  On another interesting election issue, this article describes an interesting case, although doesn't describe it well (which is rare for cqpolitics).  I _think_ it's saying that: (a) Ciro Rodriguez lost to Henry Cuellar in the Dem primary for Texas's 28th congressional district but b/c of the recent court case, got redistricted into Texas's 23rd congressional district and is now going to challenge Henry Bonilla in a make-shift primary that'll be on Nov 7. -- Sholom 21:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job on cleaning up Georgia 4th congressional district election, 2006. It's been a pleasure, once again, collaberating with you. However, in a few hours, I'll be away for 2+ weeks on vacation with very limited 'net access. Hold the fort while I'm gone! ;) -- Sholom 16:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Texas' congressional races
Hi John, I'm back from vacation. And jumping right into writing more about elections. I was toying with the idea of creating an article for Texas' 22 race (Delay's former district). I'm asking for your opinion on where to put the information. If we follow our (very recent) past practice, we'd put the info in an article called Texas 22nd congressional district election, 2006. But I see that there is already articles and/or information in other places: (a) Texas 22nd congressional district special election, 2006 (which has nothing in it); (b) Texas United States House elections, 2006 which is designed to have information on all the races (and, if complete, would be unweildy, certainly in a few more years); and (c) Texas's 22nd congressional district which would also suffer from some unweildiness in the future. So, my initial thought it to create a new article called Texas 22nd congressional district election, 2006, and delete a lot of other info and/or have "see also", and/or do redirects. But, before I was that bold, I wanted your opinion on this. Thoughts? -- Sholom 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. Yes we do agree.  I went and did the move, and added the "see also" to the other articles (but had a hard time actually deleting any info -- perhaps my bad, feel free to go in and delete).  Again -- thanks.  BTW, on another topic, I see you've recently done some work on Jack Abramoff/CNMI, I look forward to it becoming ready for prime time some day! -- Sholom 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor note
One of wikipedia's tenants is to assume good faith. In your last edit summary at Georgia 4th congressional district election, 2006, you said "removed commentary of a Wikipedian". In fact, the text you removed - text that I put in - was taken directly from a politics1.com page. I don't feel strongly about the text, one way or another, but I do mind being accused of adding "commentary". I don't. (And yes, the text was not sourced - but "Removed commentary" would have sufficed as an edit summary.) John Broughton 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, I did assume good faith. Second, I did jump to a conclusion that it was your commentary, but that does not mean that I did not assume good faith, I merely attributed the commentary to you without checking with you directly (I had no other way of knowing because there was no citation given), that does not mean that I did not assume good faith.  You are probably correct that she does run as a candidate quite often, but I did not see the relevance to the article.  Also, there is no Wikipedia article about her, I don't think there should be, but unless we do an article about her then it is best not to comment on her. Third, I am well aware of politics1.com.  I have been following its various incarnations over the years (shutting down, starting back up, changing format, etc.), but at the end of the day I would call it a blog, and as such, it is not a source that can cited in Wikipedia.  Also, if not a blog then an Internet news compiler--similar in form and content as Lucianne.com. Under either scenario it is not appropriate for citation.  In summary, I apologize for jumping to a conclusion that it was your commentary, but it would have been easier to spot that if a citation had been given. Best, --Getaway 18:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: 155.188.183.5 and 155.188.183.6
Taken care of, thanks for noticing that. Let me know if the vandlism continues, it looks like switching IP addresses isn't too hard for this fellow. Also post it at WP:AIV, for I may not be on for too much longer. -- Nataly a 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

George Allen
Sorry, hope I didn't offend. I think the Prospect is right that this could turn out to be yet another blot on Allen's record. In my opinion it seems more likely than not that it will. Perhaps, if other editors agree with my initial assessment of the text you added, you could keep it in a safe place and repost if Allen is implicated in the big mess in the future? I betcha you'll get to :) · j·e·r·s·y·k·o   talk  · 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rewording the Senate part and making it more appropriate 72.130.182.2BoltsFan

Gil Gutknecht
Did the strib contacting you over the Gil Gutknecht edits? I did a revert on the 14th to Gutknecht then went on my merry way, today I see your edit and read the artcle. Crazy! -Ravedave 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I realized about the govt site after I did the revert but it was propaganda anyways. The revert Jonathunder did was becuase I posted to the admin notice board. I knew WP has had libel issues before so I did't want to get involved since the edits said "On the authority of Gutekentchs office". I may contact the strib writer of this article. I am amazed how journos always manage to mangle articles about WP in one way or another. -Ravedave 19:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free though I have a feeling he won't know anythign about this. -Ravedave 19:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

8th district
Those are some good ideas. Next time I have time, I will look those up and add the text. I live at college now, and free time is limited. ЯyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal
Would you take a look at the latest edits in Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal? The Byron Dorgan addition seems silly but I don't want to get into an edit war. Maybe there should be a more prominent link to to Monetary influence of Jack Abramoff ? --User At Work 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Council for National Policy
Since you removed the link to Stephen Harper, would you suggest another way to show this information? His speech to the group was highly controversial in Canada, and this is well discussed in the article on him. There is no need to rehash it on the CNP article, but a link I think would helpful and appropriate. After all how many other current world government leaders have spoken to that group (and acknowledged it publicly)? Kevlar67 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a better link, and altered the wording. But generally, I think it works well.  Thanks.  Kevlar67 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hal Rogers
Hal Rogers, the Founder of Kin Canada was not known as Harold Rogers. Your attempt to claim the name Hal Rogers as the exclusive name for Harold Dallas Rogers cannot be justified. Harold A. Rogers, the Founder of Kin Canada, was always known as Hal Rogers. The page titled Hal Rogers should be a disambiguation page. Thanks for referring me to these other pages but nothing on those pages gives you exclusive right to the name Hal Rogers. I believe my change was appropriate. Please contact me so that we can attempt to resolve this matter without going throught the arbitration process Doug 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You might like to review the Membership page to see that the requirement for three articles is not a strict limit. Doug 19:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First, you should know that I am happy with how you have resolved the issue. Please see my edit to Harold Rogers.

Your "rule" about needing three terms for a disambiguation page is non-existent. And, even if there were such a rule, the disambiguation guideline makes it clear that the rules are flexible. 74.119.199.226 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)