Talk:Ken Boyd (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revisions to boyd page[edit]

I would like to address the earlier comments regarding my revisions to Ken Boyd (politicians) page. I am sorry you do not approve of my edits, but please discuss before reverting them. I spent much time getting the picture and other information on the page, which you so casually dismissed. Besides that, much of the so called 'cited' information you claim that I deleted was in fact factually incorrect and taken out of context. If you follow the link and read the articles on the given subjects you will find that the author was clearly bias and was attempting to find any and all avenues to back up his/her claims.

That being said, I have tried to be extremely non-bias in my approach. His opponent, Cynthia Neff, unfortunately does not have a Wikipedia page. I searched and it appears to have been deleted by the admins due to her not being a 'person of importance'. Rest assured that if her page was to be on Wikipedia then I would update it with the same studious approach I have taken to Mr. Boyds. I am new to the political arena and simply wish to add to this community in an unbiased manner. If you EVER feel I am being bias in any way PLEASE let me know and I will fix it.

Your 'revision' of my page simply reverts it back to its bias 2010 state which does not cover any of the ongoing debates about the Western Bypass or its assosciated groups. Please talk to me on here before you do something like that again. Thanks!

Escytherdon (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I undid your edits because you REMOVED information. Wikipedia is not concerned with the next election, as much as giving a good portait of the individual. Changing the article to be mostly relevant to the next election would be focusing on recentism. If you think something that is SOURCED is incorrect-challenge it here. Also-feel free to make ADDITIONS to the article text without removing properly cited information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.162.153 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You state that wikipedia is concerned with "giving a good portrait of the individual", and yet your changes have included factually incorrect information. You have changed the page to state that "Despite committing to not running for another term on the Board, he announced he would campaign for reelection" This is not factually correct and very negative. In the corresponding article to back this up the closest it says to anything like that is "As of now, however, he’s not anticipating a third run. “I’ve all but come to the conclusion that this is going to be my last term on the Board of Supervisors.” He is not 'commiting' to anything, simply saying that he is considering having his second be his last term. Your terminology frames this in a negative light and does not give an accurate portrait of the individual.

You also state that Wikipedia is about ADDITIONS to text without removing properly cited material, yet that is what you have done with almost every section of the article. The biography information was taken and improved upon by both news articles and .org websites in my changes. You removed the information even THOUGH it was properly cited and neutral. You removed his non profit service altogether and the records of the previous elections. How are those not relevant? In reading what you changes the Bypass text to say, it is obvious you are against it as you are only quoting negative things about it whereas mine was neutral and had a list of members on the citizens committee. Also, you removed all of his committees and organizations he is a member of while on the BOS, those are important to know (like the finance committee)

Sorry but your changes are being reverted. Escytherdon (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon04:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop disrupting by removing valid sources just because you don't like it. Feel free to challenge SPECIFIC aspects of the original texts if you would like, and make the additions you made IN ADDITION TOO the original text. We don't go around deleting stuff that's in the sources just because someone doesn't like them. If you think a source is being misrepresented, take it to the talk page-don't remove it. You were bold and removed, now discuss what you want removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.210.58 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valid sources? Sure, the following is what I am removing and why I am removing it, even though you feel as though you are above such things.

  • 1.He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments. Where is the source for this? It is bias and you know it.
  • 2. Despite committing to not running for another term on the Board, he announced he would campaign for reelection - We went over this, your source does not have him commiting to anything
  • 3. He did not serve in the Vietnam War, allegedly because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] - Allegedly is a bias term and you and I both know it.
  • 4. Once again you took out his committee chairs and appointments. Those are necessary as that is what he works on AS SUPERVISOR. You would never do the same for any other Politican as that is what tey have control over.
  • 5. The move would benefit his mega-developer friend, Wendell Wood. - Where is the source for them being friends? That is bias and you know it.
  • 6. The whole Hollymead section is misrepresented.
  • 7. You quote taxpayers for common sense saying US29 is a wasteful project, but do not mention that this was the OLD plan, not the new.
  • 8. You state that the plan is highly unpopular with the public, this is not true. If anyone ONLY did what the people wanted who showed up to town hall meetings it would hardly be indicative of the wider public audience. You have no source for this statement (valid).
  • 9. The move was condemned in an unprecedented editorial in The Daily Progress, Charlottesville's conservative daily, stating that the actions were "disrespectful toward constituents and disdainful of best practices in public decision-making."[7] The editorial went on to state that Boyd's actions were "appalling", an "end run around the public," whether "the bypass is the best solution for the public or not, the manner in which this step was taken is contemptuous in the extreme" and amounted to an "act of contempt for the public" as well as for "best practices of public leadership."[7 - A few things here. Unprecedented? Editorials for and against the bypass are written everyday. Thats bias. Conservative? The daily progress is a democratic mouthpiece. Why are you quoting one editorial against it when there are hundreds for? Thats bias.
  • 10.Despite his earlier promise to not seek a second term- He never promised anything, your being bias.

You also take out all the current material on the Western bypass citizens committe formed last week, probably because it hurts his opponent that he created it. You are being as bias as they come I am sorry.

Reverting your changes once again. I have contacted an administrator and will file a dispute form if needed, especially now that I have systematically laid out your textual bias.

Best, Escytherdon (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. He has been widely dubbed "Friend of Developers" Boyd.
  2. The source says "As of now, however, he’s not anticipating a third run." If you would like, we can change that wording to something along the lines of "despite signaling that he did not anticipate running for a third term.."
  3. You're right, alleged is probably not the right word. I will fix this.
  4. Sure, feel free to add in his committee assignments again, but add it to the ORIGINAL text, don't make wholesale changes to EVERYTHING. While you're at it, maybe add the committee assignments to Ann Mallek's page as well?
  5. That's fine- we can remove "friend," I am sure you will be fine with including that Wendell Woods donates to Boyd's campaigns though, right?
  6. Arguing by assertion? Not gonna cut it.
  7. Do you have any sources that state that the current bypass plan is fundamentally different from the one Taxpayers for Common Sense reviewed? This source sure doesn't seem to indicate that.
  8. I would argue that there are plenty of sources for the statement, we can attribute it if it would make you happy though.
  9. Please point out another editorial in the daily progress condemning a conservative body in such strong words. Come on, you know better than to argue that the Daily Progress, owned by Media General which has Eric Cantor's wife on its board is Democratic.
  10. See above.

Sorry-you are being disingenuous. Feel free to make additions to original text, but do not go around removing sections wholesale because you don't like it or agree with it. I am assuming good faith and engaging with you, and making changes where the need is pointed out, please make changes to the original text rather than simply making wholesale changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.84.1 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw this after I reverted the page.

  • 1.Where has he been dubbed this? Cite your sources, Wikipedia does not go on hearsay or rumor.
  • 2. Yes that would be neutral in tone, far better than 'he committed to'.
  • 3. Thank you, alleged makes it sound as if he claimed.
  • 4. I will add the committee assignments then.
  • 5. When has Wendell Wood contributed to Boyds campaigns? Not a single record of that is on VPAP
  • 6. The Hollymead section contains misrepresentations which we can go further into detail with.
  • 7. First, I cannot find the actual source for the Taxpayers report, can you as it is not cited. Secondly, VDOT has said that the Northern Terminus is being re-done to reflect the Forest Lakes and Hollymead construction. If changing a third of the project is not a major renovation I am not sure what is.
  • 8. Yes, because for every person unhappy with the Bypass there are ten who are in favor. No conclusive studies have been done one way or another so it is disingenuous to try and state such. Neither of us could put that people are happy or unhappy with it.
  • 9.The Daily Progress caters to its crown, and that crowd is a liberal base brought by the University. Whether the ideaological views of its owners are present or not, they are still a business and have to reflect their readership. Do we decide what gets posted onto Wikipedia based on the strong words of an editorial now? People who are against anything that is moving forward will be angry and use harsh words, whereas those in support will be much calmer and clear-headed. I fail to see how the harshness of the words from some unknown editorial out of hundreds merits an entire section.

As far as taking out sections, is that not what you have done with the biography, committe assignments, Northern terminus citizens committee, past election history, and non profit work? Those things were added on to the article but you are removing them wholesale. 24.127.51.156 (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fine- you want to know why the biography and non-profit service cannot be left in the article? See WP:COPYVIO. The northern terminus citizens committee section was dripping with bias. The past electoral history has been readded; it was just hard to do when you make wholesale changes to the article, much of which simply cannot be included (ie., copyvio). Also, even if it wasn't copy vio, it would be a WP:SPS.

I see you are making changes yet again. I will give you an hour to make the changes and remove the bias and include the information provided in my revisions before I delete. Cheers.

24.127.51.156 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon19:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, you do not own this article, so you cannot "give me" time, neither can you give me a deadline. Feel free to add in your revisions to the longstanding previous version. You were bold and made changes, you were reverted. Now its time to stop reverting back to your new version and discuss and make changes to the previous one as necessary in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.226.34 (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You can call me bold however many times you want, but the simple fact so far is that you have only begun to work with me on any of these issues. Your immediate reaction was to delete everything, not discuss. The page has been up for months and you swoop in and decide it needs to be changed. Not only that, but you do not even do the courtesy of signing in, simply making yourself an anonymous IP address making bias statements where I have tried to be neutral. It may not be 'my' page, but it was my research and facts that you are so selectively choosing in an effort to slander a politician.

It is not 'your' page either, and you have no business reverting solid research back to a bias tone (which was created by an account that has been banned I might add). I have to wonder if A. that was your account banned and thats why you cannot sign in and/or B. It isnt YOUR editorial you are so keen on citing. You say Cvillopedia is not a valid source (a community created wiki) and yet you cite some unknown editorial by an unknown person...interesting. Escytherdon (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon21:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the unsupported accusations. I am not required to create an account. I find it amusing that you are insisting on adding WP:COPYVIO to the article while comparing an editorial published by The Daily Progress with a community wiki. Again-if you have specific items you want to challenge, start a section to discuss it. If you want to make an ADDITION-feel free, but please make sure it is neutral and not copy pasted directly from the candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.43.220 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No accusations here, simply speculating. I have challenged your items in the following list. You do not have to sign in, but as I said it is common COURTESY. If your going to cite taxpayers for common sense make sure that a. it is for the current project not the old one and b. you link to their actual report. You cannot say that there is a lot of citizen opposition to the project and link to a closed facebook page. This is almost a bad a source as your editorial. Editorial reference is just plain silly. You devote an entire paragraph of a bio to some random person writing to their local newspaper and ranting. How is that a legitimate news source? Listing the elections from most recent down makes it easier to read Please give mrs. Neff’s full title. Your writing about his 2010 congressional run about abolishment is false, please read the article. He states that it should be a state run organization, not federal. Your edit makes it sound as though he said it should be gone forever. You are flat out lying in the Hollymead controversy stating that Wendell wood is Boyds largest contributor. In fact, he has NEVER contributed to any of his campaigns and I do not even believe he is a part of the organization you are referencing. That being said I left the rest of your edits.

Escytherdon (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond in more detail this evening. The editorial is attributed so it is entirely appropriate. If I cited taxpayers for common sense directly, it would be a primary source, while currently, citing the hook is a secondary source-which wikipedia prefers. What is Mrs. Neff's full title? I don't know her full title, feel free to add it if you know.. I may have time to find it later. I haven't read the article about 2010 abolishment-feel free to challenge the source in a new section here. Instead of making wholesale edits-please make a specific section for each specific change. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.66.52 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you have "given" have either been corrected or disputed, this does not give you permission to make wholesale reverts that include copyvio to boot. Also-please learn to use indents, it is hard enough to follow this page as is.

You will live without indents. My examples were corrected? Show me where Wendell Wood has ever contributed to Boyds campaign as you have claimed. You linked to some Monticello business alliance that does not even list him as a member. Show me one example of good reporting where the entire report is based of an editorial of one random person. Show me how presenting only one side of a story is considered 'full' reporting. Show me why committees and non-profit works should not be included into a persons biography, ESPECIALLY when those works have to do with the reason they are notable in Wikipedia. I love to learn.

Escytherdon (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon05:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said that the committees are fine-I am simply reverting you because of other parts of your edits-feel free to add the committees to the previous-longstanding-version. Random person? You don't want an editorial from the Daily Progress included but you do include some comments by a random lady named Ann Thornber (no offense meant to her) who has ABSOLUTELY NO NOTABILITY? An editorial published by the major local newspaper is due, not some random lady's comments.
I am still awaiting a response to this discussion. Or should I conclude the obvious: the editorial should be included but not some random lady's comments? I await your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.61.146 (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed this in point 2 and 3 of the lower list. Please read over the material and answer accordingly.
As you have still not answered the questions, I will elaborate in further detail with regard to Ann Thornber and the inclusion of the editorial in Wikipedia.
  • Ann Thornber should be included in the article because she is a member of the Citizens Bypass committee. This committee was formed to provide citizen input on the Northern end of the terminus. As what she says, thinks, and does, in her official role as a committee member will impact thousands of travelers along that road per day, as well as the property values and road safety for those nearby neighborhoods. With this in mind, I tend to think this gives her notability in this instance.
With regard to the inclusion of the editorial into the Hollymead section of the Wiki page, the entire section in your revision is currently nothing but a collection of quotes from one letter to the editor from a disgruntled citizen of no import. It does not state the background on the story, the reason behind the re-zoning, how the process was concluded, the resulting jobs and economic prosperity, etc. All it does is slander Boyd and gives little background information. As of today, two Letters to the editor such as this one are published in the magazine every day. Of those two, the paper attempts to be balanced and represent both sides of the story. You are not doing this, you are simply representing one side. This is not to say that we should even have it in there at all, as the selections grossly misrepresent the intent or process the project underwent. As I have said below, I am of the opinion that there is/was no 'controversy' regarding Hollymead. An event that received as much press as the replacing of the High Schools astro-turf and then quickly forgotten is hardly a 'controversy' worth noting on Wikipedia. If it was such a big deal it would be receiving local coverage in the ongoing election, but it is not. If we included this then we would need to include every project and every decision that caused any stir and label them as 'controversies'. You also need to refrain from calling editorials such as these 'unprecedented' with no factual basis and the Daily Progress as being 'conservative'.
As we do not have much time before the lock expires for these many issues, it is my hope that you will begin dicussion of these topics as soon as possible and in much greater detail.

Escytherdon (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Escytherdon (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon23:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the late reply. Please read the Daily Progress article again-it is not a "letter to the editor," it is an editorial. Go read it, it is "By: The Daily Progress." If you happen to have that issue handy, you will also note that it was the lead editorial. Letters to the editor in the Progress are clearly marked as such. As for Ann Thornber, I suppose then you would also support the inclusion of this statement from the website of the Forest Lakes' owners association? Ann Thornber is not a notable individual and her role in the toothless committee does nothing to remedy that. 75.243.222.188 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you brought that up! Editorials have never been used as endorsement by the Daily Progress and clearly state that they are not indicative of the views of the entire newspaper. Furthermore, this then goes back to the matter of one person who did not like what happened. It is also interesting to see your representation of the article. Lets look at it as a whole and critique shall we?
  • Boyd played a central role during the June 8th, 2011 surprise vote to change Albemarle County's position on the western bypass.(He played a central role? Boyd has always supported the bypass and did not even bring the matter up. His vote has been the same for 10 years)[6] The project was listed as one of the most wasteful road projects in the country by Taxpayers for Common Sense( This is a lie in regards to the current form of the bypass) and is unpopular[7] with the public.(Your only proof of this is a closed facebook page. Unless you can show concrete data this should not be a claim)[8] The move was condemned in an unprecedented (really? How so?) editorial in The Daily Progress, Charlottesville's conservative daily, stating that the actions were "disrespectful toward constituents and disdainful of best practices in public decision-making."[9] The editorial went on to state that Boyd's actions (Here is where we have a problem. The article never said BOYDS ACTIONS were appalling. In fact, the article does not even have mention of Boyds name ONCE.) were "appalling", an "end run around the public," whether "the bypass is the best solution for the public or not, the manner in which this step was taken is contemptuous in the extreme" and amounted to an "act of contempt for the public" as well as for "best practices of public leadership."[9]
So what you are basically defending here is an entire paragraph about an issue that is either filled with misinformation or, in the case of the editorial, from one person within a single newspaper that did not like the way the issue was handled. Not multiple quotes, or displaying both sides of the issue, perhaps from multiple sources, just one source and one point of view. That cant be bias at all can it?
  • Do you not realize that with your Forest Lakes homeowners association article you are simply proving my point? Several days worth of news coverage and a few people opposed to a project is not 'controversy'. If it was, any decision ever made would be a 'controversy'. The Southern Environmental Law Center mad about the Parkway would be a controversy (heck that argument lasted YEARS and went to court, did this? Oh wait, it didnt and the issue went away a week later and no one has discussed it since. Hardly the type of haunting 'controversy' worth noting in Wikipedia) My point is that THIS project, the US 29 bypass, IS worth noting. 20 YEARS of controversy and a law suit that went all the way to the Supreme Court is worth noting. The spending of over 200 million dollars is notable and so is everything about the project. How is the building of a few buildings that a neighborhood was against and is now not even an issue 'notable'? Ann Thornber will be influencing VDOTS plan for the Northern Terminus and potentially altering the roadway that will exists to divert thousands of drivers a day off of 29. The project has been 20 years in planning and tens of thousands, perhaps millions of people over this roads lifespan will be affected. Please explain how this is not notable. Just because YOUR opinion is that the committee is 'toothless' does not mean it does not deserve inclusion.

206.248.232.144 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon206.248.232.144 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what there is to respond to here, please again, explain to me why you think an editorial (not a letter to the editor-an EDITORIAL) that was published in the major daily here is not worth including in the article, but a member of a toothless committee which has NO ACTUAL authority over the project except for an ADVISORY role-one which has been condemned as a misuse of county resources by Mr Boyd's colleagues on the board (Rooker and Mallek) is somehow worth quoting verbatum? THAT is the question under discussion here, and oh, please stop with the extremely long replies-just state your point. 75.192.138.54 (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Wikipedia logged me out. ^was me as signed.

  • It is becoming apparent that the other editor has no further interest in this page. Past record indicates that the other user was logging on 7-8 times per day until the page became protected. Now forced to discuss these issues, the other editor has commented twice in the last five days and will not answer the questions I have laid out. I do hope that everything is well with them and if they do have an interest in this page they will return soon.

Escytherdon (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon15:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Escytherdon (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected[edit]

Since you are both edit warring, I have protected the page until you can work it out. I am warning the both of you: do not continue to revert each other. If you can not work it out between the two of you, I suggest that you follow the Dispute Resolution policy. At minimum, you should get a third opinion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be reverted to the version before Escytherdon's edits. His previous "Biography" section and the "Non-profit Service" section currently in the article are straight copy paste from http://vote-va.org/intro.aspx?state=va&id=vaboydkenc: as such they are COPYVIO. I've pointed this out to him numerous times. My reverts are exempt from WP:3RR because I am reverting unambiguous WP:COPYVIO. 75.197.81.122 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nice misrepresentation to the admin. Those are public knowledge and exempt from copyvio and you know it. Quote from the bottom of the page: All information about Ken C. Boyd was provided by Ken C. Boyd, Ken C. Boyd's campaign staff, or extracted verbatim from Ken C. Boyd's website(s).

Escytherdon (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon06:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on the vote-va.org site about them asserting copyright. If they are pulling from an official website that does assert copyright on the material, we probably can't use it on WP. Regardless, it's always best to paraphrase and cite where it's from. At least one of the sources you are using (looking at your latest diff) are not considered WP:RS, and should not be used. CVillepedia.org is a source to avoid using on Wikipedia.
To help resolve the edit war here, I would suggest starting discussions on the different sections you're looking at changing/adding and getting specific comments on them. Start with the sections in the body, maybe a couple at a time and do the lede last. Ravensfire (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I will go first then:

  • 1. I would like the other editor to stop deleting relevant sections of material, specifically A. work with non-profit organizations and B. Committees and assignments while acting as a Board of Supervisors member. These details are extremely relevant to the Biography as a whole as they are an integral part of what make the character noteworthy. The other editor has stated that these sections are ‘fine’ but continued to delete them.
  • 2. I would like to see the other editor stop deleting new information regarding the US 29 bypass, specifically regarding the creation of the 29 Bypass citizens committee. The information present was taken directly from an ABC 19 news story. The claim that Ann Thornber, a member of the committee, should not be quoted (even though she was in the article) needs to be discussed. The other editor claims that she should not be as she has no notability, to which I state she should be as a member of the committee. I also believe that Cynthia Neff, Boyds opponent who did not like the committee and was also quoted in the news article, should also be quoted.
  • 3. I would like the other editor to please remove the blatantly bias editorial regarding the so called “Hollymead controversy”. A random editorial by a person of no distinction does not warrant an entire section on a Wikipedia page. The editor claims the newspaper is ‘conservative’ with no facts to back such a claim up. The editor claims that the editorial was ‘unprecedented’ which is blatantly false and has no evidence to back it up. The editor also mis-represents the entire Hollymead controversy by not explaining the DIA jobs or background of the story. The editor also fails to note that the ‘controversy’ received as much attention in the media and by the citizenry as the replacement of the grass to astroturf in the local schools. Several days worth of media attention does not make a lasting ‘controversy’ that deserves mention in Wikipedia. If it did, then we would need to categorize every decision ever made by Mr. Boyd during his career and every one of them that people ever disagreed with would be a ‘controversy’. The editor fails to mention the re-zoning was done to bring jobs to the area and has stimulated the local economy.
  • 4. I would like the other editor to stop stating that Boyd’s biggest campaign contributor is Wendell Wood the developer. According to VPAP.org Wendell wood has NEVER given to Mr. Boyd’s campaign. Trying to say so is a flat out lie. The editor attempted to back up this statement by linking to the Monticello business alliance and stating that Wendell wood was Boyds biggest contributor, yet Wood is not even a member of such an alliance. This also goes hand in hand with the editors claim that Boyd is friends with developers and many of the moves he makes is solely to benefit them. When confronted on this earlier, the other editor claimed that Boyd was routinely called “Friends of developers” boyd, yet could not produce any evidence to back this claim up.
  • 5. I would like the editor to not include misleading information about the US 29 bypass and the group ‘taxpayers for common sense’ who listed the initial project as ‘one of the worst wastes of taxpayers funding’ in the 1990’s. This does not apply to the current incarnation of the bypass which is having a third of it redesigned. It is important to note that while the first incarnation of the road in the 1990 cancelled project would have received an F rating from VDOT, the current one will receive a C or better. (This was confirmed at yesterdays BOS meeting with VDOT). This fact needs to be represented.
  • 6. It is only proper to use Mrs. Neff’s full title: Former IBM vice-president of Human Resources.
  • 7. I would like to see the writing about Boyds 2010 congressional run about abolishment changed. Reading the article, he states that it should be a state run organization, not federal. The current edit makes it sound as though Boyd said it should be gone forever.
  • 8. I would like to see actual sources for ‘substantial citizen opposition to the US 29 bypass project’ if the editor is going to claim it exists. As of now the only source backing up that statement is a closed facebook group that cannot be accessed. Hardly a good citation.
  • 9. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the other editor feels such a strong need to include that Mr. Boyd stated in one article two years ago that he “is thinking about not running again” and yet now he is. Is it such a great thing to change ones mind? The current edit by the other editor states

“Despite signaling earlier that he did not anticipate running for a third term on the Board, he announced he would campaign for reelection on May 12, 2011.” While this is factually true and can be present, I have to wonder WHY it is necessary. It gives no great insight to anything other than changing circumstances and a renewed desire to be in public office. Furthermore, the other editor mentions this fact THREE TIMES in the Wikipedia article. I hardly think it is that important, one time is enough.

  • Speaking of poor citations, what is the deal with this Facebook page the other editor keeps trying to reference as a source for citizen opposition to the Bypass? Does Wikipedia actually accept things of that nature as reputable now? If I need a new source or different citation for the biography, non profit, and committee work so be it, I will find it.
  • To the other editor: PLEASE respond to all of these points in full. I do not want to have a mix and match discussion. Thank you.

Escytherdon (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take Ravensfire's advice and address one or two of these at a time. A discussion addressing too many issues can get too complicated very quickly. To that end, please respond to me in the above section and allow us to get that settled before moving on. Thanks. 75.243.61.146 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded. If you wish to only address one or two topics at a time then let us start with numbers 8 and 9. I have stated my case, please state yours Escytherdon (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last time I will fix your indentations for you, please learn how to indent properly or I will not reply. Let's finish discussing the issues that were already under discussion before opening up new discussions. That would be the one above. Thanks. 75.243.61.146 (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how many times are you going to avoid confronting these questions? I have repeatedly asked them, yet you consistently dodge them. These are the same issues that were already under discussion, I have simply compiled them. Lets discuss numbers 8 and 9, please state your case.

23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Per WP:PREFER:

  • "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."

I would like to ask that an administrator kindly rever to this pre-edit war version of the page by Gogo Dodo, thank you. 75.243.61.146 (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request argument: I would argue against that edit request as the previous article for several reasons.

  • 1. The article in question contains many of the bias and misinformation being argued here.
  • 2. The original author of the article, user letsgocrazy, was banned from Wikipedia. As we cannot be completely sure as to who the mysterious IP address user is, it could very well be that the anonymous user is letsgocrazy attempting to prevent any changes to the bias material.
  • 3. As there is a relatively short period until the lock on the page has expired and both parties have stated their willingness to work together on the contentious issue, why not devote the time and energy into resolving the issue rather than continuously citing and applying for administrative requests.
  • FYI: To the other editor- The rule actually states that: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." You leave out the important last sentence in an attempt to confuse the issue. The administrator has followed this by removing the potentially copyvio material. Also, I do not appreciate having my comments hidden or idle threats that you will "stop responding to improperly formatted responses." If you do not wish to respond then do not do so, but if this is the case then please stop attempting to edit that page.

Escytherdon (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon22:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No policy based arguments there-just proof that a certain editor needs to go read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. 75.243.61.146 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Thank you for the refresher on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. As far as I can tell, I am not making any kind of threat or slander against you. Introducing the possibility that someone on the internet might have ulterior motives that are unclear is not a slander against your character, simply an observation. This observation is probably not helped by your own actions of refusing to create an account and switching to different static IP addresses every thirty minutes or so. That however, is your own choice.

Escytherdon (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I do not see consensus to support this request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions made on 11/1/2011[edit]

I am reverting the changes done to Ken Boyd (politicans) page for several reasons.

The Ken Boyd (politican) page had much of the original and contentious material submitted by WikiManOne, BelloWello, and LetsgoCrazyTogether. All of these accounts have been banned indefinetly and/or were found to be sock-puppet account by Wikipedia. Under the 3 revert rule, "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts" is acceptable. In addition, the same rule states that "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living personsis also acceptable. While this last portion of the rule may be questioned as to what constitutes its purview, the bias material submitted by the now-banned accounts cannot be.

WikiManOne was the original author of the article. As this is the case, I will be re-writing the article to remove their bias and unsourced material. I will invite the other editor and the community (as I have posted on the BLP noticeboard for the involvement as well). Please discuss on the talk page any changes that should be done so we can come to a consensus once the objectionable material has been removed.


Escytherdon (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Nevermind! I am receiving help from the Wikipedia community on the bias and misinformation so this will not be necessary.

Escytherdon (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not work like that. You already made changes to suit your biases, they were reverted. Now, you need to propose your changes and achieve consensus for them BEFORE making edits to the article. Nothing in the article is libelous, so BLP does not apply. The WP:3RRNO also does not apply since it is no longer the work of only a banned editor. 75.243.110.92 (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does apply, as any libelous material MUST be deleted IMMEDIATELY from any living persons biography. Additionally,WP:3RRNO does apply since the changes you are reverting back to include the work of the banned editors. I am refraining from doing so now to reach a consensus with other editors of the Wikipedia community. If YOU would like to discuss these changes, feel free to actually comment on them. I have laid them out several times and you have only commented on minor ones wherein you simply re-state your case multiple times and offer no burden of proof.
  • "He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments." (Where is the citation or proof for this? No he has not and you cannot make statements such as this without backing them up.)
  • He says he did not serve in the Vietnam War because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] (Saying he 'says' that he did not is almost accusing him of lying. Why include it?)
  • In 2009, he told C-Ville Weekly he would not run for reelection to his Supervisor seat in 2011.[1] (This is actually a flat out lie. He did not say he wouldnt, he said he would consider not but wasnt sure. This is referenced earlier in the article, why state it a second time?)
  • There is no Hollymead controversy. This received two days worth of media attention and is now gone. If it was worthy of note in Wikipedia it would be an issue in the current election or even in the previous ones, it has not been. What makes it worthy of note in a biography? It is also very badly misrepresented here.
  • Boyd did not play a central role in the bypass decision, he has had the same vote for it for ten years. He did not even bring it up, another supervisor did and another one after that changed their vote giving the pro people the majority.
  • The OLD bypass was listed as wasteful by the taxpayers for common sense, not the new and re-designed one. This is misleading and false.
  • The source for the bypass being unpopular is a closed facebook group. How is this even a source?
  • the editorial was not unprecedented. The daily progress is not conservative, and why is only one side of the issue being represented? Best to simply state facts about the issue rather than messing with quotes from both sides.
  • Why is cynthia neff a non-notable person for Wikipedia (her page was deleted) yet she is given reference in the article and her website listed at the bottom?

Escytherdon (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stating that during the congressional run he wanted the DoE abolished is a lie. Reading the article, he says he wants it to operate at the local and state level and not the federal.

I made small changes to the article. See my notes on the changes. I would like to discuss the 'Hollymead Controversy' and the current form of the "Western Bypass rebirth" as well. I believe that, in its current form, both these violate WP:NPOV on several fronts.

  • 1. Both articles currently give undue weight to one opinion of the story. For Hollymead, the report is completely focused on the opponents of the re-zoning process and does not accurately portray the side of those in favor of such or who might be. Similiarly, the Bypass article currently only quotes one opinion editorial which was against the project, hardly a testament to portraying both sides.
  • 2. Hollymead is not a notable event, and fails to meet the WP:EFFECT guidelines. It is not a notable issue and if it was would have received far more news coverage than a few days. If it was notable it would be a current and lasting issue, yet it has never played a role in any election cycle. Therefore, it should be removed.

Escytherdon (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ken Boyd (politician). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Boyd_(politician)&oldid=1217212402"