Talk:2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: New Hampshire Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Hampshire portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Daniel, good morning. As I understand it, the arguments about the dismissal of seven US attorneys are centered principally around the Arkansas and New Mexico US attorneys. If there is some sort of argument about a US attorney in New Hampshire, I am unaware of it. Guilt by association is something I'm keen on deleting wherever I see it, but if you have a RS, go for it. Kzq9599 14:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's been considered in the same context. True, the Sullivan letter to Leahy doesn't mention it, but given that we now know that U.S. Attorneys were pressured politically, this is the background allegation. The letter alleges that the U.S. Attorney for New Hampshire, himself a 2000 congressional candidate whose wife worked for the Bush 2004 campaign (along with James Tobin) should have recused himself. But I'll take it out (Of course, in the future it could be part of the dismissals investigations as well. But not yet). Daniel Case 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blogs, especially partisan blogs, and most especially speculation in partisan blogs, are not WP:RS. Please review the bits about self-published and partisan sources. Please also review WP:BLP, since these are living people we're talking about here. The two blogs you've relied upon are both self-published and partisan. All material that can't be verified in reliable sources such as the Manchester Union Leader has been removed. If you can produce reliable sources, please cite them when you replace the material. Thank you. Kzq9599 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your tone is not helpful, especially considering your extremely limited amount of edits to the project and your inordinate focus on James Tobin of late. And that you have a vandalism warning on your talk page that I had to restore after you removed it in violation of policy. You're teetering on the edge of being reported to WP:AN/I as I am beginning to suspect you are a single-purpose account. You have a point there, but without all the blog links it will not be possible to put in links to the Manchester Union-Leader' stories.

Are you part of James Tobin's legal defense team or related to someone who is, perchance? You need to disclose that conflict pronto if so. I would find you easier to deal with if, as I did, you used your real name and did not vandalize pages. Daniel Case 05:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

My tone? I'm being polite. I refuse to use my real name just like hundreds of administrators here at Wikipedia. It doesn't take 17,000 edits to read and understand WP:ATT, WP:RS and WP:BLP. I'm not connected in any way to James Tobin's legal team, the New Hampshire Republican Party, or any other person or organization that would create problems with WP:COI. How about you, Daniel? Are you connected with the Democratic Party, perchance? Or Moveon.org, or Talking Points Memo? Since you asked me, you've defined these as fair and reasonable questions. Kzq9599 06:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would say that my estimation of your tone is not at all helped by your flippant response to the warning I put on your talk page when you, quite against policy, removed a vandalism warning you didn't agree with. Yes, I am a Democrat but not in New Hampshire. Why would MoveOn have anything to do with it? Why would you need to ask when you can Google my name, as I cannot do for yours?

I have gotten the feeling lately from some edits here that this article has been targeted for sanitization á la National Institute on Drug Abuse, so I get suspicious, especially when I read your user history. Yes, you have made some good points here, and your edits probably improved the article, but someone with the sort of experience that that many edits provide knows how to handle this tactfully, and doesn't remove vandalism warnings from their talk page. Daniel Case 06:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you think this article has been sanitized, think again. I've reviewed this article very carefully this evening, checking all of Marshall's claims against other sources, and only took action after two hours of research. There is still abundant and damning evidence against the New Hampshire Republican Party in this article, and I resent your insinuation that I've been sanitizing it. Only those claims (and speculations) that couldn't be verified through reliable sources were removed. Unlike you, I'm registered as an independent and I do not carry a brief for either party. I did not recognize Orange Mike's statement on my talk page as a warning. Kzq9599 06:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I'm mellowing out now. You did actually do a good job for the page ... it just gets my back up when changes this extensive to any article on my watchlist are done without beginning to resolve them on the talk page. I hope you accept my apology; I have to call it a night. Happy editing! Daniel Case 06:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I accept your apology and I hope you'll accept mine. We both need to remember WP:AGF as well. What I saw was an article about a Republican scandal, dripping with speculation and innuendo from self-published and cynically partisan blogs, and being defended by a Democrat. What you saw was an unknown newbie rolling around here like a loose cannon, ripping out paragraph after paragraph of sourced material. Let's try to trust one another. I am a single purpose account. My single purpose is to make Wikipedia articles better, Daniel. Let's work together. Kzq9599 13:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply