Talk:2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio

Rich Iott

Once again we have an article created for a Republican candidate which does NOT link back to the relevant election article, does NOT include the voter information links the election article has, and serves only to repeat the candidate's campaign site. That's hardly encyclopedic. Flatterworld (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It links here. I've made that link more apparent, if that helps. ClovisPt (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but no, it still wasn't apparent. See Rich Iott - that's how we link from a candidate to the relevant election article(s). Anyway, I fixed the whole article (with the changes explained on the Talk page) so it's now a 'real' article - seemed easier than arguing with KeptSouth who decided to delete the Merge templates based on nothing other than her belief her article was just peachy-keen as is - I note she couldn't be bothered to post anything here at the actual discussion. It appears no one creating articles can be bothered to look at similar existing articles to find out what's supposed to be included at a bare minimum. Amazing. I'm sick and tired of repeating This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign extension. Flatterworld (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

<--[Outdent]

Setting the facts straight

Assertion: Edit summary by Flatterworld when he added the Merge tag: "yet another ridiculous fluff article with NO links to the election article with has actually useful information for the voter"

Facts: the second link in the Iott bio went straight to the election article. Notability was already established: Google had been full of articles on Iott's wearing of the Nazi uniform for nearly 48 hours, this was not going away, three RS were already in the article: The Atlantic Magazine, Fox News, The Toledo Blade.

Assertion Flatterworld says here that: "the article serves only to repeat the candidate's campaign site."

Fact: The article already contained information from several outside RSs.

Assertion: 24 hours later Flatterworld says: "I fixed the whole article...so it's now a 'real' article - seemed easier than arguing with KeptSouth"

Fact: the Rich Iott bio, though adequate at the outset, was improved by more than 30 edits before FW "fixed the whole article". Flatterworld's edits [1] are mainly matters of minor form, and personal taste. One of the edits, creating a "Military service" section is just plain wrong. Another edit, adding the withdrawn candidate to the info box is dubious. In other words, his editing is not at the the extensive and essential contribution that that his edit summary and comments here paint it to be.

Assertion: Statement by FW that "KeptSouth who decided to delete the Merge templates based on nothing other than her belief her article was just peachy-keen as is - I note she couldn't be bothered to post anything here"

Fact: The assertion is a distortion, at best, as I put fact-based discussion on the Rich Iott talk page 24 hours prior - the wrong place, I now know, but FW didn't have any trouble finding it, and replied over there. Shortly after removing the merge tag, I also continued to improve the article, though it was already adequate as a stand alone. So what are FWs comments all about? They smell like a WP:DEADHORSE to me, and I would not bother to respond except for the fact there are many false accusations being made by FW here and on the Rich Iott bio talk page. Hopefully this is the end of it..-KeptSouth (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

District 12 - Fitrakis

He claims he's running as a Green Party write-in, but he's not listed although other Write-Ins are. I don't know if he still has time to qualify or not, but I doubt it. Anyone who knows is welcome to update the list - I commented out his name for now. Flatterworld (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Coussoule

I've proposed merging Justin Coussoule here as he fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Stephene Moore. The article meets the requirements for a serious article, so the merge request can be discussed after the election. Flatterworld (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing notable about Coussoule.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

jftr: Jerzeykydd then nominated the article for deletion, with no notification of anyone who worked on the article, obviously not acting in good faith. I have merged it, as Coussoule is currently notable for this event. Flatterworld (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ourcampaigns.com should not be a reference in this article

ourcampaigns.com has been listed for all 19 OH districts as the first external link. I don't think it should even be listed in this article once, let alone 19 times. I have temporarily moved it to last place in each of the 19 articles, see this diff for the change I just made.

ourcampaigns.com is a collaborative website - in other words, it is an open wiki. It is not an RS, and I believe it should be entirely removed it from the list of sources here WP:SPS and WP:VERIFIABILITY. I will wait a short while for comments and debate before doing so, but at this point, I cannot imagine any arguments that would support keeping this open wiki as a source when there are many other RSs that cover the races.KeptSouth (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of Dayton, Ohio.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Flag of Dayton, Ohio.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Seal of Ohio.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Seal of Ohio.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)