Talk:David McSweeney

message: Adding back the note that McSweeney is a Lutheran. He mentioned it in an interview for a cable news program. 04:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "In this race McSweeney favored abortions in the first eight weeks." This is a false statement has been debunked by many news papers. It's part of a smear campaign run in the Republican primary. McSweeney is solidly pro-life. Removing statement.Walden2000 03:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I summarized the position noted in cited reference.  If you have a better reference, please provide it and we can consider removing the abortion discussion altogether.  However, as it stands, it seems to be the defining issue of his 1998 campaign.  (BTW, welcome to Wikpedia, Walden 2000.  To yourself and all the other newcomers editing this article, I'm not an American and have no interest in American politics.  I do care that the integrity of Wikipedia is preserved.  You can't just arbitrarily remove material without justification.  Thanks for taking this issue to the talk page and providing some explanation.) Samw 03:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I revised the section about McSweeney's abortion position in the 1998 race. I attempted to be balanced in the presentation. I feel very strongly that some discussion of the 1998 abortion stance is critical to an accurate article on McSweeney. Any arbitrary deletions will be reverted. 03:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the specific source of criticism on the life issue in the 2006 primary, changeing "other" to "Al Salvi."20:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1998 abortion position

message: I removed the word "only" from the sentence "David McSeeney won with only 43% of the vote. The runner-up was Kathy Salvi." McSweeney won with 43% in a heated 6 way primary, this is a very respectable victory. He finished a full 10 points ahead of his closest competitor, Kathy Salvi, inspite of a million dollars in negative TV ads.20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 Primary

message: 70.224.134.134 made a highly questionable edit, possibly vandalism. The user deleted important information; Republican Bob Churchill refused to endorse McSweeney in the general election. There was a source cited. Furthermore, and of even greater concern, 70.224.134.134 listed "spelling" in the edit summary. This is very poor form! I reviewed his/her user contributions on this page and others, and I found them to be highly concerning. I will monitor this user and request everyone else's assistance in doing so. 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were 7 or 8 deletions today by anonymous users. They did not provide any edit summary, and did not discuss on the talk page. I know we should assume good faith, but this smells bad to me. Seems like a campaign worker is censoring any content they don't care for. I reverted the deletions. 68.252.191.128 03:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 70.216.211.155 deleted the majority of the article. There was no edit summary provided. There was no discussion on the talk page. This is vandalism. This seems to have increased in the last couple of days. I ask my fellow editors for their help. Please assist me in monitoring this page. Thanks. 68.79.55.76 13:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Vandalism

message: Throwing around false legal accusations is definately crossing the line. If you can't site a credible source you have no business posting an FEC violation. This clearly violates wikipedia standards. fowl Walden2000 03:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, its not up to us to make conclusions on data.  Please don't remove the whole section over that one statement though.  I've removed the legal speculation and restored the section. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that someone correctly noted in an edit summary that a campaign can receive two contributions up to $5,000 each from a PAC / committee, one for the primary and one for the general election. That's accurate. However, FEC records show McSweeney received both donations from the John S Fund after the primary had already occurred. In Illinois the primary was 3/21/06, but the contributions occurred on 3/27/06. This does not seem to be merely a clerical error, as both the contributor (John S Fund) and the recipient (David McSweeney) reported this in a consistent manner. There are proper sources cited. To call this a possible violation of federal election law is a stronger statement that I would have used, but it does not appear to be a subjective statement. By the way, I'm not one to throw around accusations lightly. I think it is entirely possible that the violation was inadvertent and without any nefarious intent. The likelihood of an honest mistake seems greater, especially since the John S Fund's treasurer resigned. Perhaps the new parties involved are not quite up to speed yet. I will follow the issue to see if the McSweeney campaign returns the second donation. If they do, I don't see how it would be much of an issue. I think there should be some mention of a possible violation, but I am unsure as how to present this in the fairest manner. Any suggestions? 70.131.81.204 21:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, how much did the primary campaign owe after the election? if the first donation can be defended as paying off primary expenses anyway, it may be legitimate. Septentrionalis 03:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundraising

message: I'm in the process of verifying the sources, fixing dead links, and converting to new ref system. Be patient, it will take me some time to fix them. --FloNight talk 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify and convert references

message: I reverted this sentence :
Because it's not the place to speak about it. We will not write arguments in favor of abortion in all articles about pro-life politicians, or against same-sex marriage in articles about gay-rights activists. It violates the neutrality of point of view. if a reader wants to make his mind about the opinion of David McSweeney, he will click on the link about stem cell researches, and make his mind with the pro and cons hell find there. --Revas 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  embryonic stem cell research