Talk:Bob McEwen

message: I added notes about Bob McEwen's spamming.  I haven't seen it in the news, but I have received it. Wirehead 20:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spamming

message: An anonymous user, 72.49.119.180, who has never made another edit, on October 12 inserted the information about McEwen's senate run.  He noted the creation of a McEwen for Senate page that very day, which suggests to me the editor is involved in the campaign--how else would he know about it that quickly?  PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate run

message: I added the tag "Good article" to this because the writing is clear, concise, informative, and npov.  The problems still remain from its failed FAC of having better inline citation and at least one good photo... the old fair-use one just does not look good. -Dozenist talk 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I'll state that inline cites are not necessary and I've had several articles become featured articles without them.  And I challenge anyone to find photos for McEwen that won't be objected to at FAC.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: McIntyre/McCloskey facts inaccurate.  First, McIntyre was never seated - the House refused to seat either men.  Second, the certification was done only after a partial recount showed McIntyre in the lead, not after a full recount.  While McEwen's remarks are accurate, the facts underlying the statement as described here are biased.
:Nothing was said about recounts.   I will consult the Congressional Quarterly Almanac to confirm the facts, but I don't belive the anonymous post above is correct and have removed the "disputed" tag.  PedanticallySpeaking 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I changed it from "unseat" to "reject the credentials of".  Better?  PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also note that the page for the "disputed" tag refers to "significantly inaccurate" information.  I don't believe it was appropriate to use it here.  And I am once more removing the label.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate

message: I do realize this article, which is largely my work, needs to be updated to cover the campaign with Schmidt.  I have been working on other areas in recent weeks and hope after the primary tomorrow to be able to bring it up to date.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating

message: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[United States]] article on featured candidate nominations list

message: This page has been semi-protected during its stay as a featured article. It will go back to normal status when its stay as a featured article ends or another admin returns it to normal. Capitalistroadster 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: erm....what? any chance of reading this. the vandalism seems to be no more intolerable than normal. 172.213.85.4 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: The article ends in 
McEwen also considered a campaign for Lieutenant Governor as the running mate of Hamilton, and Warren.
==hfuergueugsrugt78gew465erw5hy2356459465hytjr7rt65fr65tfmjmr5t6njf6m5rt65rtmfnj6m65murermnjft
This is not right.
Please correct.
--80.63.213.182 09:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Whether or not he's a good man is beside the point. This is a really odd selection for featured article. Supposedly, it was picked because it "met the standard" for a good article, but isn't there more to a good Wikipedia entry than meeting some list of standards? Shouldn't a really good article actually have some kind of a point? This is a bland retelling of the bland career of an apparently bland public official, who isn't even currently serving in any kind of public office. Very strange.
--67.160.74.124 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? I am well able to sit here and criticize the process that allowed this boring, poorly-written article to make it to the front page, regardless of any contributions I may or may not have made to other articles. What's next, I can't vote on RfA's until I'm an admin? The topic is completely relevant. Part of the purpose of putting a featured article on the front page is to show unregistered users what great work can come of the collaborative process. Is there ANY possibility that anyone is going to snooze through this piece and then be so moved that they can't wait to register and start editing? — GT 00:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Zanimum's response misses the point and is rather rude - even if we work on more appropriate, more notable political figures and bring them up to FA status, this would absolutely nothing for our position here that minor figures brought up to FA qualityt\ should be barred from the main page and perhaps from FA quality altogether. Every minor US political candidate has a following of volunteers including many web-savvy college students. Imagine if every US political candidate for minor political office tasks his volunteers to create an FA-quality article about the candidate Bwithh 05:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a better article, by internal WP standards, than many FA's, which strongly appear to be energized by a POV; there is no obvious POV here. In fact, my question would be: did McEwen do anything in office other than local pork and junkets? Most multi-term congressmen do. Septentrionalis 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizarre choice for Featured Article

message: I think I will write an article on some obscure politician from my own country. An article on Commisioner Omar Wahlid of the municipal water works will surely make FA.
: LOL...seems as if someone in my city stole your idea...see Teresita Román de Zurek, not only is she an obscure politician but also wrote not one but two cook books ;P Rosa 05:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can write a proper article that is NPOV, referenced, etc. we'd love to put it on the front page.  --  Zanimum 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If he's notable enough to have an article at all, then he's notable enough to have an FA. HenryFlower 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Any topic that fits our notability guidelines can, and should become an FA.  --  Zanimum 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, no.  That's a secret. HenryFlower 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Write FA About Your Own Local Politicians

message: Why was the article protected for 10 hours?! See User:Raul654/protection for why it shouldn't be protected for more than 15 minutes at a time. This goes against the semi-protection policy. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 19:33
*Because it is a sensitive article as noted above and increased in profile because of its status as a featured article. Capitalistroadster 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: The talk page has a 'running for office' tag.  As I read the article, he isn't anymore, so can we remove the tag? HenryFlower 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. HenryFlower 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Running for office?

message: OK. So I've come here to read about this article and what people think about it. I have read the article and I don't think it meets the criteria for featured articles. I don't want to be disruptive, so I'll ask here first: what is the process for nominating an article to be de-featured? Do you have to be able to demonstrate significant changes since it passed FAC? Should I just go ahead and edit the article to improve it? If I think I have improved it, can I submit it to be retrospectively de-featured and then promoted back to featured status based on the changes? (This would involve linking to the version immediately after passing FAC, and comparing to the version being re-submitted to FAC).
In fact, in general, does an article reaching featured status decrease the amount of editing that is done on an article? I have seen plenty of featured articles that could be improved a fair bit, but is there not a process at the end of that to recognise any improvements made to a featured article? In other words, can you get the featured status renewed? Carcharoth 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry this is a bit late, but the process for nominating an article for review and possible delisting as a Featured Article is located here. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominate for defeaturing?

message: It seems to me that the state-of-the-art in FA's is to use the <ref> tags on dated material and then to have a bibliography of more traditional volumes that usually only identify a year and maybe a month of publication and often bear an ISBN. The latter is often not available on the web for free. The latter is also given a pass on how much input it really had to the article.
But this article's lengthy bibliography is almost all dated to the day.  It seems to me that much of that "bibliography" could be folded back into the brilliant prose as inline refs or discarded. Any objections?--SallyForth123 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I look a little deeper, I see that this was already done for Jean Schmidt.  I am going to do the same for this article. Really: A bunch of titles of news articles from the 1990's do not constitute references that will help the average Wikipedia reader understand McEwen because the text of those newsarticles is not readily available. To be reasonable, I will only dump the pre-2000 articles that have no URL's.--SallyForth123 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some concerns about this FA

message: I was using a tool to get the wikisource conformant with MoS issues.  I have since had it adjusted so that it leaves contractions alone. Sorry about the confusion.--SallyForth123 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry about the contractions

message: Hello. This person has recently been in the news over the fallout from Wes Goodman's resignation of his seat from the Ohio House of Representatives. I read the Washington Post article mentioning that McEwen is an executive director for the Council for National Policy (CNP). I have not found information on when he joined the CNP. It would be before 2015 when the accusations came to light within the CNP. I am asking if anyone knows when McEwen joined. Thanks. FunksBrother (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   Council for National Policy 

message: The article includes paragraphs of unsourced content and hasn't been looked at by reviewers since 2006. Are there any updates on subject's life? (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA criteria 

message: Reporter's bame is spelled wrong: it's Tom Diemer 2601:194:837F:4270:A11E:E462:EDAA:EB1B (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Reporter's name is spelled wrong: it's Tom Diemer. 2601:194:837F:4270:A11E:E462:EDAA:EB1B (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ton Diemer