Talk:Jon Porter

message: How should this section be titled? Qqqqqq (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that the question refers to his positions that the "Democrat" (sic) party lists. IMO the way his positions are listed are not done in a neutral way, and I will try to fix that when I get a chance. Something along the lines of "political positions" or similar would be better.Ngchen (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Section titled "Stance on issues and voting record" exhibits obvious political bias and should be deleted until there is consensus. A quick read suggests no other problems. Raggz (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:Douglasmcmahon on all counts, especially the second last one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has come to my attention that the comment I made may breach Wikipedia rules so in the interests of full disclosure I should explain how it came about.  I am a Harvard Law student taking a class in Cyberlaw.  One of the assignments that we were given was to enter into a debate where there had been a request for comment or the like and try to help to resolve it.  As we were asked to do this in groups my comment above actually represents a consensus opinion amongst 6 people where the consensus was reached on another wiki.  I won't delete the comment as I genuinely believe it to be helpful but an administrator may wish to consider its place.  Also it should be noted the group hasn't made any edits to any other discussion pages on this issue. The dispute that led to this comment is located here Douglasmcmahon (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: POV of positions

message: I would like too see those 'positions' removed, or allow myself, a Republican, to create a section entitled 'Republican Rebuttle'. Please let me know what you think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your IP address shows you're from the House of Representatives. You obviously have a conflict of interest, and should have no part in this article. You will not manipulate this page to your liking. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I will not. Feel free to 'report' me for not wanting this article to be manipulated by a known vandal IP. I'm sure that will go over well, if you know how to tell just the right lie. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an appropriate use of the neutrality tag.  To allow beliefs from a Republican point of view is not neutral.  It looks like the references for that section all come from the Las Vegas Review Journal or OntheIssues.org--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: All of the stances and beliefs are properly referenced and appear to clearly have a neutral point of view. This edit of yours that was a blatant attempt to completely remove all referenced facts is completely inappropriate. I'm supposed to assume good faith on your intentions, but with all the new accounts that suddenly pop up in an attempt to censor referenced and documented stances and facts joining together with an IP from the House of Representatives, I refuse to feign ignorance. As for your proposed actions, #1 is acceptable if the stances are properly referenced with a neutral point of view and not from a blatant Single-purpose account from the House of Representatives. #2 would be a suggestion to change the label to a deliberate, gross misinterpretation. #3 is unacceptable and only further justifies the notion that you are another account from the House. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions 

message: What's the CAF?  Apparently it advocates for energy independence, but I can't find what that stands for. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Will. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAF? 

message: For the discussion behind the semi-protection, see the archived AN/I discussion  -- Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protect 

message: Foreign policy, Government Reform, and Immigration should be added because they are essential issues.
:No need for the editprotected template - the page is only semi-protected, so you'll be able to make the edits yourself once your account is four days old.  For what it's worth, your proposals seem reasonable to me, though they could do with fewer capital letters. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements of his political positions need to be more neutral than the example below.  Best practice is also to link to a specific bill, so that the reader can follow up the capsule summary by getting more information about the actual content of the bill. JamesMLane t c 22:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new edits 

message: Congressman Porter voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border, he voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. Congressman Porter also co-sponsored H.R. 4987 which would set a deadline to build the fence along the Mexican border. (PackerFan123 (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Immigration

message: I don't see how it can be considered a smear to quote verbatim what one notable Republican politician said about another.  I propose restoring this quotation unless its authenticity is challenged. JamesMLane t c 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it contributes anything to the article, frankly.  I don't think it's a smear, I just think it takes up space without doing anything to increase the reader's understanding of the article topic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement. It lacks sufficient context to be anything but guilt by association. ThuranX (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Stating that Cheney endorsed Porter and hosted an event for him would be relevant, I would think. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were actually a particularly notable situation. However, Cheney has endorsed and hosted for many candidates within his own party. Had he thrown an event, that it, initiating and taking full managerial control of the procedings, that might be more significant, but 'hosting' means a quick speech and gladhanding time, not anything really significantly notable in itself. ThuranX (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully with ThuranX.  It's the nature of party politics that politicians in the same party say nice things about each other.  We could fill the page of every Republican congressman with laudatory comments made by high-profile Republicans - hell, in the leadup to the 2006 elections, the administration was saying nice things about Lincoln Chafee.  It's only worth including if it's somehow outside of the ordinary - across party lines (in the case of Feingold's and Lieberman's praise of McCain, for example), or controversial, or otherwise extensively remarked on by the media. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheney speech

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Substituted at 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jon Porter. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930011151/http://politics.lasvegassun.com/2007/07/porter-sticks-o.html to http://politics.lasvegassun.com/2007/07/porter-sticks-o.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033332/http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2005/mar/01/518371125.html to http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2005/mar/01/518371125.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020317/http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=768&chamber=H&congress=1101&state=nv to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=768&chamber=H&congress=1101&state=nv
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) 17:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified