Talk:Tom McMahon (mayor)

message: I think the last batch of information is vital for any readers who may stumble across this article. It provides possible storyline that readers can view and process for themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BCsix1oh (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 July 2006  (UTC)
:I disagree strongly. Per our policy on biographies of living persons, we need to be very careful to avoid libel and slander of anyone who is a living subject of one of our articles. The only sources for this trash are (1) a political opponent of McMahon, and (2) a political blog, neither of which meets even the most liberal reading of our guidelines regarding reliable sources. I would urge that the material again be removed until a credible source is found for its inclusion; we have been threatened with lawsuits and negative publicity for far less. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's a primary source. We would need a credible news organization, reference work, or other reliable source which indicates not only that (1) this happened, but (2) people noticed and it was a significant event in the life of Tom McMahon. Incidentally, if you see "tons of articles" which are committing similar libel and slander against living people, please drop me a note on my talk page and I will try to clean it up, or you are welcome to do the same yourself. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Me personally? The first two are a definite yes, the other two are suspect but could probably be citable in some circumstances. It's not just about what I think though. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If this is such a major issue, surely you can find a reliable source (like a local newspaper editorial) so that you can say "The Duckburg Times argued that..." instead of just making your own arguments. This is a place to present concrete facts, not extrapolations and original interpretations of situations. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I'm not from the area. I watchlisted the page when a user was posting copyright violations by pasting in the mayor's whole bio, and so when the latest dispute came up I happened to be around. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Re: the recent addition and removal of commentary about our anonymous contributor(s) - the content here about Matt Heckman's blog is not really relevant to the discussion about what does and does not belong in the article. If this user becomes problematic in his/her own right, then the appropriate place for such information would be a request for comment or request for arbitration, or perhaps some other dispute resolution method. It doesn't belong here. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog excerpt 

message: Whoever keeps removing this section of the article needs to stop.  The facts were sourced.  Tom McMahon is up for reelection this year, and it's not unusual for somebody to play politics with their article to make them look better.  Please leave the politics out of it.
I'm not the one who's been removing it, but I can't say I don't agree with him. This article is extremely short, and it looks like it was created specifically to include that criticism and nothing else. It was a stupid one-time incident, and if there's to be no other information in the article then it shouldn't be there anywhere. That's giving it entirely too much undue weight. No single criticism, no matter how well sourced, should dominate an entire article.--Dycedarg ж 07:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trash Rage At The Marvel 

message: I have reworded the paragraph about the pre-election incident to be more parallel with the other claims made by the article. You are correct that some of those other additions at first used inflammatory language, but this section did as well. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Marvel Incident" 

message: I am not sure what the individual who reworded the techie section was trying to accomplish. Stating the subject of the articles opinion of things is not stating an overall opinion. I find it curious that the information regarding McMahon's thoughts on safety was removed. It would be nice if when you remove something like that you would come here and explain it in more detail. In my humble opinion it looks like it was possible you were trying to remove more than POV information. If I am in error, feel free to make the changes again and explain them in detail here. And the truth shall set you free! 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Techie Section" 

message: This is getting stupid. NPOV does not mean one sentence stubs for each section. What Berksguy wrote contains quite a bit of information, and deleting it because you don't like his wording or style or whatever it is that upsets you is not helpful. If you disagree with the encyclopedic tone of what he wrote, fix it. Deletion is not the answer.--Dycedarg ж 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, my "template" was mostly about keeping the coverage in the article neutral towards all the different events. I certainly don't feel that it represents a great article as I had it. If some or all of the sections can be expanded with factual, cited information which is neither cheerleading nor defaming, then by all means, expand them. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dirtybirdy, you need to chill. I am not a hypocrite, and calling me one is a personal attack. Both of you, do not make baseless accusations towards each other and me. Comment on content, not on the people who add it. Oh, and by the way, I have if anything a conservative bias. Eskog's sole edit was to change the trash debate section to a neutral state, an edit which I wholly agree with and have restored. I find it difficult to understand how you could treat that as an endorsement of the states of any of the other sections. Regardless of the neutrality of the wording of the information that Berksguy has added, it is from what I can see factual. So if you don't like the wording, fix it. Make the article better. Deleting half of it does not accomplish that.--Dycedarg ж 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be sourced, but it's not neutral. Eskog, judging by his only edit to the article, agrees with me, seeing as he removed the same stuff I did. Angrily is unnecessary, newspaper reporters are no more able to magically determine someone's state of mind than anyone else. The exact manner in which he removed the papers is also unnecessarily negative, and makes the sentence too long. I don't really see why the quotes are necessary either. If they must, the quotes can stay but, I am removing the other stuff I mentioned above. If you want to re-add them, justify the action beyond "it's sourced." I can easily source a statement saying that George Bush supports terrorism, but you can try adding that to his article and see how long it sits there. Sources that are not neutral should be edited until they are.--Dycedarg ж 19:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops - as this is a content dispute, I should not have used rollback. My edit summary would have been the same as the previous edit summary. The "source" for this information does not even mention McMahon's name, so claiming this is his fault is at best original research and more likely an intentionally misleading statement. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Would you people stop doing this?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Tom McMahon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.co.berks.pa.us/elections/lib/elections/election_results/2007/resultsbyoffice.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.readingeagle.com/blog/letters/archives/2006/09/mayor_apologize.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327061125/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/members.shtml to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/members.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929122847/http://www.readingpa.gov/mayor_press_releases_senior_grants.asp to http://www.readingpa.gov/mayor_press_releases_senior_grants.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314174113/http://www.readingeagle.com/webexclusives_video/mayor/index.html to http://www.readingeagle.com/webexclusives_video/mayor/index.html
*Added  tag to http://www.readingeagle.com/WebExclusives/hazletonordinance.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060811000243/http://www.readingeagle.com/blog/mayor/ to http://www.readingeagle.com/blog/mayor/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified