User talk:John Broughton/Archive 2

Note: this covers April 2006 through June 2006 (selectively).

Tom M. Davis
Update: for whatever reason, some discussion is going on at User talk:172 (I had asked 172 to also check in on this article, as yet another neutral observer). -- Sholom 14:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

References vs. links
Hi. Your recent edit at James H. Webb makes plenty of sense, but your edit summary intrigued me. Do you find links under "References" to be a widespread problem? PRRfan 21:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

already covered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.smith#Doolittle 132.241.246.111 01:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Social promotion
What is wrong with the social promotion article that I wrote? I wrote all the sides to it. I don't understand..Don't you agree with what I wrote? (Oahc)


 * Oahc - please see your talk/discussion page or the talk/discussion page for the article. John Broughton 15:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Who says you can change things? I'm a wikipedian...and I have a right to...You don't have knowledge of it....I've done research...and all you do is reject it..it makes sense too. And I'm putting it back...you already violated the 3 revert rule. (Xtremeruna21)

Abramoff reprise
You may want to see Articles for deletion/Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal, and that the editor keeps trying to insert Harry Reid into Template:Jack Abramoff -- Sholom 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hutchinson and McConnell are divorced
I noticed you removed edits by an anon claiming that these two were divorced, but I think he was right. Here are a couple sources for it:   I'll leave it up to you to decide whether to re-enter the information into the articles. Maximusveritas 03:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Great Neck Village School
How come you are considering this article to be deleted? Other schools are on Wikipedia. Why not this one? (Xtremeruna21)

Social promotion
Can you edit more on the article? we need footnotes...I want it to become a featured article. What should I add to make it better? (Xtremeruna21)

There's not much for the "for" social promotion. There is more cons than pros. What am I supposed to write? So are you going to help out? I hope it becomes a featured article soon. Then I will be so happy that I contributed to this article. (Xtremeruna21)


 * For the "rest of the story", see:  John Broughton 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved comment
Hi, wanted to let you know that you had placed a comment on Xtremeruna21's userpage. As it looked like it was intended for their talk page I moved it for you. Syrthiss 11:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits to The Hunger Project
I would appreciate if you would explain why you changed back some text that I fixed in The Hunger Project, so I understand what I might have done wrong.
 * I changed a heading of "Primary Activities" to "Primary activities", because wikipedia policy is that only the initial word in a heading is capitalized. You changed it back.
 * I changed "organi-zation's" to "organization's", because that clearly was a typo. You changed it back.
 * I removed the pennies ($232,010.00 became $232,010); you put them back. Do you really think that the extra ".00" adds any value to the article?  And so on.  Did you just reverse my editing changes on general principle?  And if so, what would that principle be? John Broughton 16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I have restored the edits you mentioned, must have been a mistake whilst combining some previous sections of the article into a more comprehensive version, I honestly didn't notice that I had removed those edits until you mentioned it. By the way, thank you, because we actually could have used some more copy-editing on that article.  If there were other edits that you had done, feel free to edit the article again.Smeelgova 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lewis, et al
I see that you're interested in the Lewis/Shockey/Copeland-Lowery/Letitia White/etc etc burgeoning scandal. I've been following it also, although I'm having a hard time constructing an overall picture of what's going on with all that (only lots of peices). In any event, if you are thinking of doing an article on that, I'm volunteering to help. (And, FWIW, I still think an Abramoff-Marianas Islands-DeLay-etc article still needs to be done). Cheers! -- Sholom 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You wrote Offer accepted. I was thinking about the article being about the lobbying firm - it's not clear that White or Lowery or Shockey is really that significant (although, for all I know, there are articles on one or more of them; if so, I might change my mind). Something that is more or less a chronology, I'd guess. What do you think?
 * The name of the article (and/or where we file it) can come later. It certainly seems that Lewis and Lowery are central to this (after all, it is the Copeland-Lowery firm, and Shockey earned millions while going through the revolving door of each, etc.).  I'm not a big fan of time-lines in an article, but I do think it would help to create one in the interim (certainly it would help _me_) in order to see the big picture of what's going on here.  So, what's the first step?  Setting up a temp page somewhere to begin this? -- Sholom 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, here goes: /Lewis-Lowery-Shockey-White lobbying controversy

Great job so far!! Thanks for organizing the data dump. And sorr for not contributing much lately. I'm in the midst of switching computers, so I have limited on-line time for another day or two. -- Sholom 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One more item -- I mentioned it on the page but wanted to highlight it. That LA Times article also had this nugget about Lowery's firm: "The firm has also represented ADCS Inc., a defense contractor headed by Brent R. Wilkes, who has been identified as a co-conspirator in the bribery case of convicted former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham"
 * I'd like to soon open the article up to the public, so to speak, so we can get more help. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking the most important tasks would be to: (a) come up with a name; (b) a narrative at the beginning explaining the big picture; and (c) inserting links to the article in a number of other places.  Or am I being premature here? -- Sholom 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You answered: ''I think we should set a deadline for "publishing" the piece, yes, and then do so. Friday? As for the title, perhaps "Jerry Lewis lobbying controversy"? I'm reluctant to include Lowery in the title because of Wilkes involvement.''
 * That shouldn't be a problem -- Wilkes hired Lowery's firm, too.

I also thought about "Jerry Lewis earmarks controversy"; that sort of implies that the lobbying fees paid are in exchange for earmarks, and it would then be a stretch to put the stepdaughter into the article, although that's clearly of the same piece.
 * Hmmm . . . how about something like "Jerry Lewis - Lowery lobbying firm controversy" ?

Okay: /Jerry Lewis - Lowery lobbying firm controversy

''What I was thinking of doing was creating yet another temporary page (perhaps when we agree on a title), as a draft, and leaving the top sections (working notes) of the existing article as is. And yes, it would be good to provide links (best is non-TPM, but TPM will have to do if time or other sources are lacking) to text that isn't supported yet - might as well anticipate those who are looking to nit-pick.''
 * Sound fine to me. Almost all of TPM's stuff lists sources, we oughtta be able to dig them out. -- Sholom 17:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I just wrote a first draft of an intro to /Jerry Lewis - Lowery lobbying firm controversy. I discovered somebody else just created an entry for Jeff Shockey. So I invited him to the project. Please see my comments at User talk:User At Work

Due to his great work on Abramoff, I also left a note at User talk:Kwh letting him know about this. -- Sholom 21:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice job! Sorry I couldn't contribute much in the last few days -- (sometimes employment work gets in the way) Congrats!! -- Sholom 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Social promotion (2)
I'd like to help out with this article. What can I do to help? I don't know what else to put in it...Everything that was said is already on there. (204.168.120.179)
 * I'm posting my reply here because your IP address is shared; I'm assuming whoever you are will read this page if you're interested in my response.
 * One thing you could do is convert the five links in the "External Links" to footnotes (references), where there is material in the article that comes from one of these five sources. For any of the five that cannot be converted (because there is no text in the article that appears to come from them), you should then move the link to the "Further Reading" section.  See Footnotes and Citations for further information.


 * That requires that you follow the five links provided in the article, and READ them. I find it hard to believe that the wikipedia article actually has ALL of the important information from these five sources. So another thing you might do is add text (new information) to the article, citing (paraphrasing, and avoiding duplication) what you found in a link.


 * A third thing you could do is run a google search on "social promotion", and check out promising results. "Promising" means that the source is a reputable publication, organization, or individual (for example, an academic).  When you find a source that isn't in the article, add it to "Further Reading".  John Broughton 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing on the Tobacco Advertising page
The reason I removed the photograph from the "Tobacco Advertising" section is because its letting a deadly product be advertised for free, which is morally and ethically wrong. Please do not let photos/pictures of tobacco products be placed on Wikipedia. Thanks, John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillies corner (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, thanks for the reply. I think I may bring it up on the talk/discussion page. I understand what you are saying, but when it comes to letting a picture of a tobacco product be displayed, it should not be allowed. I think if people are desperate to see a picture of a tobacco brand, then they can use a search engine to find it, go to the tobacco company's website, or buy a dirty packet of cigarettes, so it is not necessary for Wikipedia to show these images. I'm not trying to be a pain or a so-called "spammer," I'm just trying to do what I feel is morally and ethically right.
 * Thanks. Gillies corner 01:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff "Scandal" vs "Controvery"
Please see this request to change the name. -- Sholom 12:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Changes to CRNC article
Mr. Broughton,

The names and identities of these state chairs are, in fact, plenty newsworthy. There is an abundance of information regarding the CRNC available and so there are actually countless experts on the CRNC these days. Sir, it is those experts who made the page the way it is today. And they will accuse you of defacing it too.

Joseph T McCarthy 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[Joseph T McCarthy]

I appreciate your feedback. You've proven my point in many ways. I would encourage you to re-read some of what you left on my talk page and maybe you'll see what I mean. Take care and it was nice talking to you. 19:56, 30 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph T McCarthy (talk • contribs)