Talk:Bill Richardson (politician)

message: This entry was moved here from WP:RM, as a record of the discussion there. Please do not add to this archived content, but instead make new entries in the section below. Noel (talk) 14:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on WP:RM

message: There is consensus that Bill Richardson (politician) is a far better known personality than Bill Richardson (radio).  I have moved the disambig at "Bill Richardson" to "Bill Richardson (disambiguation)"  -- Jord 17:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bill Richardson (politician)]] &rarr; [[Bill Richardson]]

message: MISHANDELING OF WEN HO LE CASE
:Wow.  What an argument you make.  Or not.  It earns discussion, perhaps, but how was it mishandled?  Because Lee plead out on the charges?  Think Richardson had control over the FBI investigation?  You're ill-informed if you believe that.  --ABQCat 08:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous comment on Wen Ho Lee case

message: NBC had a story on the Latino/Hispanic vote and briefly profiled Bill Richardson on October 14, 2004.  Brokaw said that Richardson was born in Mexico.  Before anyone goes and changes the article for that comment, according to Project Vote Smart (most respectable source I could find in 5 minutes, Vote Smart's entry for Bill Richardson), Richardson was born in Pasedena, California.  Brokaw was mistaken as far as I can tell.  --ABQCat 01:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First sensible thing on Talk page

message: I was just wondering - when two notable people have the same name, is it necessary (per wiki policy, for example) to create a disambig page, or could the predominant user of the name keep the main article?  I'm asking because I've noticed this in the past and honstly don't know - Brian Williams, for example.  I thought for example that the Bill Richardson (radio) blurb up at the top of Bill Richardson was quite sufficient, but as I said, I'm not up on what the policy is.  --ABQCat 05:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this move has broken links on at least 10 pages I have found so far.  I just think someone should bother taking care of that before deciding to just move the page.  --ABQCat 05:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for move

message: This is clearly biased. First of all, Santa Fe is not 2 hours from Albuquerque and the writer included none of the discussion of the article. I have posted it here to be edited before it is put back on the main site.
:Sante Fe is a two hour round trip, as the article states.Nobs01 19:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport/Enron Comment 

message: This should include information about his family life.  Does he have a wife and/or children? (Alphaboi867 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family 

message: Perhaps something needs to be added about the Gov's purchase of a new jet to fly to New York for fundraisers; fuel consumption to fly at 40,000 ft, the flight lanes provided for non-commercial jet traffic, is impractical for flight within New Mexico which is purportedly how the appropriation for purchase passed the state legislature.  nobs 18:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gov's jet

message: There is a vibrant Richardson netroots--why were all of the links deleted as "link spam?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.44.72 (talk • contribs) 
Blogs are nearly always link spam.  For politicians, the only blogs that are appropriate are ones where the candidate contributes.  For example DailyKos has some Democratic congressmen who contribute regularly.
I completely disagree. Isamuel
You may disagree, but it would help if you knew Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid.  Now, on what basis should this blog be added to external links?  I find it suspect, particularly when it is added at the top of the external links list (common behavior for link spamming).  Ted 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spam? 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links