This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:AJames32, the major contributor to this article has no other contributions to Wikipedia, and may have taken some of this verbatim from sites such as http://www.electbruceharrell.com/. Someone may want to take a closer look at whether everything is decently cited and whether it is written in a manner that neither violates copyrights nor slavishly follows the subject's own campaign-oriented self-account. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This reads just like a campaign page bio. Just revised it to remove a lot of campaign-style material that characterizes actions ("progressive") and implies that certain legislation has accomplished or will accomplish goals when no evidence of such is present. Avocats ( talk) 18:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Bruce Harrell. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Should the infobox contain Choice #1 (the current version) or Choice #2? -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
They are both good, I like #1 slightly better because it shows him in action, and because the low camera angle on #2 is very slightly unflattering. The argument for #2 would be that #1 is chopped off a bit at the top. RFC may be a bit overkill on this but IMO that's a minor problem. North8000 ( talk) 12:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please cut this out. Don't start any more unnecessary RfCs. Please close the two unnecessary RfCs you just created.
When the guidelines specifically tell you "don't do X", then doing X is not "polite". It's what we call WP:POINTy. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
An experienced editor such as yourself ought to be able look at points made by someone who disagrees with you without resorting to hyperbole. Not every edit requires an RfC. When a non-dispute is treated like a dispute (on two different articles), at least some editors are going to say so. An experienced editor ought to expect that. I pointed out this is one of those cases described in very first section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment in which an RfC is premature, and I pointed to specific polices and guidelines that support my assertions. The worst thing I did was hint that this is WP:POINTy. Perhaps I was going a little far with that.
But in reply, you post an admission that you are, in fact, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point! What do you know? There was never any reason to use a dispute resolution process to simply replace a poor image with a better one. You did so to make your point that "it's the bureaucracy that needs to change, not me".
If you didn't want to boldly change the image, you could have posted a simple question about it, and waited ot see if there is any opposition. Only after you and that hypothetical editor could not agree on the image change should you have used one of the dispute resolution tools like an RfC. But you did it because of motives that have nothing to do with either the article Bruce Harrell or Ed Murray (Washington politician).
Can't unring that bell, but please don't do it again. The only reason I'm pressing this issue is that I'd like you to agree to not start any more RfCs unless there is a dispute. We've all had previous content disputes that left us feeling bitter. It happens. Assuming every little edit is going to become an unresolvable dispute, and jumping straight to a formal tribunal, is disruptive. Can you agree not to do it again? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"you post an admission that you are, in fact, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point!...You did so to make your point that "it's the bureaucracy that needs to change, not me"No, I didn't. You're reading way more into what I wrote that what's actually there.
"There was never any reason to use a dispute resolution process to simply replace a poor image with a better one."RfCs are not just for dispute resolution. From the RfC project page: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning...article content."
"I'd like you to agree to not start any more RfCs unless there is a dispute...jumping straight to a formal tribunal, is disruptive. Can you agree not to do it again?Nope, I sure won't. As was already pointed out to you above, RfCs are not just for content disputes but also for requesting outside input concerning article content, which is precisely what I was doing. Remember, when you first attacked me over this and demanded to know why I started this RfC, I answered, "Because it's the polite thing to do"? That was my reason, plain and simple - still is - and that reason is completely within guidelines for opening an RfC. If you are bothered by employing the RfC process for requesting outside input concerning article content, you are, of course, welcome to pass by the RfCs I open in the future. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages.(my emphasis). …
Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page.In my experience, nothing short of summoning 3 or 4 other editors is going to be "faster" or "more effective".
Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others.Only applicable when RFC is being applied to a dispute. As I have demonstrated above RFCs are for more than disputes, so when there is no dispute, this section can be disregarded. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Editing policy makes clear that I'm still free to improve articles as I see fit, and so I went ahead and made the article better. Which anybody is free to do. It is not "impatience" to boldly improve articles. It's called "editing Wikipedia". It's what we do. Since nobody seriously objected to the new photo anyway, and if they really did, they would have reverted my change. But as I have been saying, it's uncontroversial and therefore not in need of a formal dispute resolution process.
All this time spend on this silly photo, by so many editors, while the actual content of the article is still a total mess, mostly written by a a PR flack for Harrell's campaign. This is why I wanted to avoid this. It saps the limited amount of volunteer labor we have on useless discussion. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add the predecessor and successor for his district and former position. The titles and geographic boundaries may have changed, but redistricting is something that occurs. It doesn't seem useful to break all those links and lose that information. Additional context about the change can be added in the main article text. Jwfowble, you are the one who reverted my edit. Would you be fine with this addition? It would be the same as Rob Johnson (Seattle politician) and Lorena Gonzalez (Seattle politician), which you have also been working on, and would also match with Kshama Sawant. See also the table of members at the bottom of the Seattle City Council article. Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 04:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hannah Raymond,
MSUSunday,
Marinluxgrant,
Spartanwiki19 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by SarahReckhow ( talk) 12:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:AJames32, the major contributor to this article has no other contributions to Wikipedia, and may have taken some of this verbatim from sites such as http://www.electbruceharrell.com/. Someone may want to take a closer look at whether everything is decently cited and whether it is written in a manner that neither violates copyrights nor slavishly follows the subject's own campaign-oriented self-account. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This reads just like a campaign page bio. Just revised it to remove a lot of campaign-style material that characterizes actions ("progressive") and implies that certain legislation has accomplished or will accomplish goals when no evidence of such is present. Avocats ( talk) 18:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Bruce Harrell. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Should the infobox contain Choice #1 (the current version) or Choice #2? -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
They are both good, I like #1 slightly better because it shows him in action, and because the low camera angle on #2 is very slightly unflattering. The argument for #2 would be that #1 is chopped off a bit at the top. RFC may be a bit overkill on this but IMO that's a minor problem. North8000 ( talk) 12:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please cut this out. Don't start any more unnecessary RfCs. Please close the two unnecessary RfCs you just created.
When the guidelines specifically tell you "don't do X", then doing X is not "polite". It's what we call WP:POINTy. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
An experienced editor such as yourself ought to be able look at points made by someone who disagrees with you without resorting to hyperbole. Not every edit requires an RfC. When a non-dispute is treated like a dispute (on two different articles), at least some editors are going to say so. An experienced editor ought to expect that. I pointed out this is one of those cases described in very first section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment in which an RfC is premature, and I pointed to specific polices and guidelines that support my assertions. The worst thing I did was hint that this is WP:POINTy. Perhaps I was going a little far with that.
But in reply, you post an admission that you are, in fact, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point! What do you know? There was never any reason to use a dispute resolution process to simply replace a poor image with a better one. You did so to make your point that "it's the bureaucracy that needs to change, not me".
If you didn't want to boldly change the image, you could have posted a simple question about it, and waited ot see if there is any opposition. Only after you and that hypothetical editor could not agree on the image change should you have used one of the dispute resolution tools like an RfC. But you did it because of motives that have nothing to do with either the article Bruce Harrell or Ed Murray (Washington politician).
Can't unring that bell, but please don't do it again. The only reason I'm pressing this issue is that I'd like you to agree to not start any more RfCs unless there is a dispute. We've all had previous content disputes that left us feeling bitter. It happens. Assuming every little edit is going to become an unresolvable dispute, and jumping straight to a formal tribunal, is disruptive. Can you agree not to do it again? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"you post an admission that you are, in fact, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point!...You did so to make your point that "it's the bureaucracy that needs to change, not me"No, I didn't. You're reading way more into what I wrote that what's actually there.
"There was never any reason to use a dispute resolution process to simply replace a poor image with a better one."RfCs are not just for dispute resolution. From the RfC project page: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning...article content."
"I'd like you to agree to not start any more RfCs unless there is a dispute...jumping straight to a formal tribunal, is disruptive. Can you agree not to do it again?Nope, I sure won't. As was already pointed out to you above, RfCs are not just for content disputes but also for requesting outside input concerning article content, which is precisely what I was doing. Remember, when you first attacked me over this and demanded to know why I started this RfC, I answered, "Because it's the polite thing to do"? That was my reason, plain and simple - still is - and that reason is completely within guidelines for opening an RfC. If you are bothered by employing the RfC process for requesting outside input concerning article content, you are, of course, welcome to pass by the RfCs I open in the future. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages.(my emphasis). …
Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page.In my experience, nothing short of summoning 3 or 4 other editors is going to be "faster" or "more effective".
Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others.Only applicable when RFC is being applied to a dispute. As I have demonstrated above RFCs are for more than disputes, so when there is no dispute, this section can be disregarded. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Editing policy makes clear that I'm still free to improve articles as I see fit, and so I went ahead and made the article better. Which anybody is free to do. It is not "impatience" to boldly improve articles. It's called "editing Wikipedia". It's what we do. Since nobody seriously objected to the new photo anyway, and if they really did, they would have reverted my change. But as I have been saying, it's uncontroversial and therefore not in need of a formal dispute resolution process.
All this time spend on this silly photo, by so many editors, while the actual content of the article is still a total mess, mostly written by a a PR flack for Harrell's campaign. This is why I wanted to avoid this. It saps the limited amount of volunteer labor we have on useless discussion. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add the predecessor and successor for his district and former position. The titles and geographic boundaries may have changed, but redistricting is something that occurs. It doesn't seem useful to break all those links and lose that information. Additional context about the change can be added in the main article text. Jwfowble, you are the one who reverted my edit. Would you be fine with this addition? It would be the same as Rob Johnson (Seattle politician) and Lorena Gonzalez (Seattle politician), which you have also been working on, and would also match with Kshama Sawant. See also the table of members at the bottom of the Seattle City Council article. Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 04:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hannah Raymond,
MSUSunday,
Marinluxgrant,
Spartanwiki19 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by SarahReckhow ( talk) 12:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)