Talk:Bill Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] RfC

I am responding to the Request for Comment. It seems peculiar that someone should file a RfC when there has been no previous discussion whatsoever. Regarding the specific question -- how much detail should be included on the spamming episode -- it looks about right to me as is. --HK 15:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Several efforts have been made by vandals to remove (whitewash) the Bill Jones spamming incidents. Nobody denies it occurred, but some just don't want the matter discussed, for some reason. It's certainly a noteworthy incident in Spamming history--the first major politician to spam the entire world in political campaigns--and defend the practice. Dananderson 18:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the reference to the spamming seems noteworthy and properly sourced -- I'll keep this page on my watchlist. --HK 23:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This was certainly a noteworthy incident and the amount of mention it receives here seems appropriate to me as well (I came for the rfc). Kit 02:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The only problem I had with the spam section is that it was about 90% of the section on the Gubernatorial run. I think (perhaps naively) that people were trying editing down the spam portion to make it commensurate with the rest of the section. But the problem was that the gubernatorial section was too short and had too few details. Editors should have expanded the rest of the gubernatorial run section, rather than cutting down the spam section. Still, I think it’d be helpful to, as always, asssume good faith, rather than call people vandals and accuse them of whitewashing. I'd also like to thank Dananderson for adding the subsections. That's something I planned on doing, but he's the one who took the initiative to actually do it.Jim Campbell 01:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)