This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I'm sure that you do welcome consensus and discussion, but what you did at
United States House of Representatives elections in Connecticut, 2012 was make a major (and in my view, a somewhat controversial) decision by removing material without having made, as far as I could tell, sufficient enough effort to discuss your rationale first and await some type of response, whether in support or opposition of your efforts. Not every edit to Wikipedia need be discussed on talk pages, but ones which may be interpreted as unorthodox certainly warrant discussion.
I concede that you may have to know a bit about Connecticut politics to realize that the
candidates you removed are not fringe candidates who have nothing but self-published websites. For one thing, Joe Courtney is the incumbent congressman, so his website is certainly valid as a source. However, he has not (as far as I can tell) stated yet if he will run for re-election, so I'll concede that removing his website was correct (at least for now).
As for Lisa Wilson-Foley, however, she was a Republican primary candidate for lieutenant governor last year, so I take her for an actual legitimate contender and more than just a name with a self-published website. I have re-added her and her website to the article. However, I have also added a third-party, reliable source citation for her candidacy, which I hope you will find acceptable. For quick reference, here's a link to the source I added:
[1].
Thanks for responding. I don't think I really have very much to add to that, since everything you said is correct. I took the edit to the Connecticut page to be uncontroversial simply because nobody had complained about similar edits to other pages (see
here,
here and
here, among others), but in this case I probably ought to have looked harder for a reliable source (I suppose it's possible that I skipped over that part altogether). Anyway, I certainly have no complaints about restoring Ms. Wilson-Foley with an RS. Thanks again, –
hysteria18 (
talk)
13:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)reply
File:Flag of Dayton, Ohio.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
File:Seal of Ohio.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article,
File:Seal of Ohio.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is
non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
As
in Illinois, now the filing deadline's passed we have a few names who never filed to run but never publicly declined to either. (For the moment they're commented out in the article.) A reference for them having declined to run or explaining why they won't be on the ballot would be useful.