Talk:Van Taylor/Archives/2013

Acceptable Picture & The Taylor campaign's view of Wikipedia

I think I found out why there is a problem. I emailed the Taylor campaign to ask for a campaign photo, so everyone would stop bickering about the two crap ones there now. This is the response:

"apparently our wikipedia has been in a back and forth battle, it being falsified every day by the leader of the college Democrats, we would very much like to have control over it, as it is about us. How could we do that and lock it from changes."

Sigh. That might be what all the fuss is about. They clearly know about this page (it is one of the top hits on google), yet instead of making it acceptable, they are engaged in a revert war against the leader of the college Democrats, whoever you are! *shakes fist* Rather sad really, they haven't made any attempt to put an acceptable picture up there (or flesh out the article), and I think they chose his military outfit for this page which mainly exists because of his political intentions. I don't really see how they could go any lower. I'd be worried about posting the email exchange, but from the sounds of things, they simply don't get it.--Kugamazog 23:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• A picture of Taylor wearing his military uniform at a political rally would seem to violate the Defense Department directive which bars "[t]he wearing of the uniform is prohibited under any of the following circumstances: [d]uring or in connection with the furtherance of political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn." Department of Defense Directive 1334.01, "Wearing of the Uniform", available here.--Bulawdude 20:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Appears the picture was taken in front of Dallas City Hall at a Veteran's day parade which would not violate any DOD directives.
  • Cite for that?--Bulawdude 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The image simply needs to be sourced to whoever took it, and a license cited - preferably, the photographer will release it under the GFDL. FCYTravis 01:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • There is no information about the photo's provenance.--Bulawdude 03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Then it will, in due time, be deleted by our unsourced images processes. It should be so tagged, and if it's not, I'll do it myself. FCYTravis 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Addendum: Jkelly has already attached the proper tag. FCYTravis 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Claim to be a 7th Generation Texan

Until someone can prove Taylor's descent by reference to public records or the rolls of the Daughters of the Republic, etc., please quit inserting an unproven assertion. Thanks.

Taylor on Hardball

The video that keeps getting removed is legitimate. You guys are having a revert war and it only looks silly. To Hugo delgado, the video is not hosted by Crooks and Liars, but recorded by them. The video is unedited and simply because it makes him look incredibly bad doesn't mean it's biased. When you delete such information, it gives the impression that people would be better off knowing less about this person and brings overtones of political spin. In short, facts sometimes have a POV. Deal with it.--Kugamazog 11:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is an unedited video showing the candidate's response to questions. There is no basis for removal. Ditto with the transcript. -G

Protection

For whatever reason, people keep removing links for Taylor's performance on Hardball. They are doing it via anonymous edits and when I traced the IP address, it is someone near the Texas A&M University, the heart of Taylor's campaign. Can we PLEASE actually lock the page? This is getting very absurd. --Kugamazog 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Even as I wrote _just_ that entry on protection, the page was vandalised TWICE within a minute, both edits removing content that calls into question Mr. Taylor's legitimacy. This is ridiculous.--Kugamazog 02:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Texas A&M University is HARDLY the heart of his campaign. He's not an Aggie, Edwards is. But on the same note... shame on you Aggies!! Don't lie, cheat or steal. And have some balls and post your name with your edits! --Cathenryinc

Leave Page Alone

The Van Taylor page contains verifiable, documented information. More videos have been added and the hardball video has NOT been deleted. According to the wikipedia rules for living biographies the article is neutral. Please leave the page alone even though you don't like the pictures or some of the information.

You say that, but you removed several key bits of information over several posts. I placed them back in. Your picture also has no copyright info so I switched that back as well.--Kugamazog 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing information detailing the credible accusation that Taylor moved into Texas specifically for the purpose of running for Congress is suspect, to say the least. Additionally, that photograph of Taylor seems inappropriate, more something you would see in campaign propaganda, like him kissing a baby. If you want to include a military photograph of Taylor, a more appropriate one might be his official photo in his Class A uniform (or whatever the Marines might call it). Davemo 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if we could get someone with contact with his campaign *cough* to give us his "official" position that would be good--Kugamazog 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep removing the picture. It's the Class A uniform you requested. Also, I don't know why you would get rid of links to such things as the Marine Corps Reserves and the like. Sounds like someone doesn't like anything but their own opinion and is determined to see that only their information is displayed.

I've only edited this page once, and that was a style edit. It looks like Bulawdude keeps reverting everything that gets changed. Davemo 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish this guy who keeps removing relevant information realizes it's only hurting Van's campaign. A letter to the editor was published today in Texas A&M's The Battalion, mentioning the campaign's attempt to suppress info on wikipedia. I laughed out loud when I read it. Mail Call -Texink 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash - tk 23:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing Bias

After reading this article, one can clearly see how its bias. Bulawdude's sources have titles that clearly indicate a preference for Mr. Taylor's former opponent, Chet Edwards (D-17). Articles with titles such as "We recommend Chet Edwards in House District 17" and "Questions about Mr. Taylor's residency linger" are not adequate references for a Wikipedia page. This page should be about who Van Taylor is, what he has done, and what he is doing right now. It is clear from Bulawdude's edits of this page and others, that his intentions are malicious and deviant.

Why don't we just delete this page altogether? Van Taylor lost the election (which is why this article was created in the first place) and is unlikely to run again. End the Edit War. -Texink 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should delete the page. His campaign supporters keep adding info that shouldn't be included (like the picture) and removing information that should be included (like the hardball video). Also, his campaign supporters keep adding back that Taylor was born in Midland when Texas public records clearly show he was born in Dallas. FYI, I didn't add the article entitled "Questions about..." I did add the article from the Dallas Morning News, which every self-respecting Texan knows is one of the most conservative papers editorially, because it did compliment him in the beginning before pointing to very serious questions of fitness.--Bulawdude 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Would it be possible for Van Taylor or his campaign to release his official campaign photo into the public domain or under the GFDL so that we could use it on this page? FCYTravis 02:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Appears the fair use rational for the picture has been updated, agree another photo could be helpful, but not the picture the Edwards supporter keeps putting up in an attempt to degrade the article subject. Carraudes 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is, because that VoA photo is in the public domain, it by policy supersedes the one currently posted here. It would be most helpful if we could get an official shot released under a free license. FCYTravis 03:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)