Talk:Kathleen Maltzahn

Recent changes

It looks like Citizen7au has been doing a lot of work to the article which The Drover's Wife reverted giving edit summaries "nope" followed by "Your changes verge from mere whitewashing to demonstratably factually wrong. Discuss on talk first, then add when you have consensus." Though The Drover's Wife may have a valid point, it appears quite clear to me that at least some of Citizen7au's changes are productive. Since all of the changes were reverted citing whitewashing and factual incorrectness, and since it's clear to me those criticisms don't apply to all of the changes, I'd ask The Drover's Wife to be more specific or selective with what he/she removes pending discussion. In other words, I'm not opposed to reverting the addition of controversial content and would not restore material selectively removed for whitewashing and/or incorrectness, but a blanket revert seems unnecessary and possibly counter-productive. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made a compromise edit leaving in the undisputed edits. In terms of what remains, this is a controversial rewrite by someone with what smells like a COI to me, on an article on a candidate in a highly marginal race, less than a month out from an election. The previous version was neutral and represented Maltzahn fairly - the new lede and policy positions sections could have been written by Maltzahn's press secretary for how full of spin the revised versions are. These need to be discussed, in detail, before they go in. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd also note that this appears to be a SPA for the sole purpose of trying to spin this article. It's hardly a great leap in the circumstances to suggest that if it isn't Maltzahn herself it's someone with ties to the Maltzahn campaign. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree that in terms of general tone Citizen7au's edits had some issues with promotionalism -- I just didn't see the across-the-board egregiousness either. Thanks for working on a compromise. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kathleen Maltzahn. 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/20090819115520/http://www.kathleenmaltzahn.com/ to http://www.kathleenmaltzahn.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819115520/http://www.kathleenmaltzahn.com/ to http://www.kathleenmaltzahn.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819115520/http://www.kathleenmaltzahn.com/ to http://www.kathleenmaltzahn.com/

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) 05:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)