Talk:Ben Cline

news release tag

The language seems fairly neutral to me, it's just a recitation of bills Mr. Cline has introduced. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben Cline Article

I have rewritten the article before to make it non-promotional. All of the legislation included is real and cited with correct sources. The subjective text included comes straight from the Virginia House of Delegates web site and was not edited to provide for promotion for the legislator in any way. It was marked in March when the page was extended and I have reached a consensus with the last marker. Please point out what specifically is "overly promotional" about the article other than the list of legislation that this legislator has introduced.

If your reasoning behind it is that it includes no legislation that has been killed then 1) that legislation is no longer on the table and has no substantive use as information to be included and 2) I would refer you to our sitting president Barack Obama's page where it includes legislation that he has passed successfully through the U.S. Congress.

Please, stop marking it as a news release as the matter has already been dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.77.189 (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Contentious Edits to Page

I've removed the edits to the women's rights section as they do not deal in a general manner with the subject of the article, are overly specific and irrelevant to the subject matter at hand, and are blatantly biased (evident by the title of the section the original editor gave to the section) as those were the only edits the previous editor made to the page. Please talk about any edits to this section here on the talk page, where they're supposed to be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.161.44 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Cline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212162606/http://bencline.com:80/biography.aspx to http://bencline.com/biography.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Women's Right's

I know that for many wikipedia editors the Women's Rights section may not seem so pertinent to this public official's bio page, but for at least half the population this is indeed an important issue that should be placed in perspective among the other issues that are brought up in this politician's article. Therefore, other than sexism or some intern or PR rep trying to put a slant on this page, I see no reason why this section should be excised from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C6:8301:7A34:C870:B094:2945:F146 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to edit this page by restoring the deleted section with this politician relating to Women's Rights issues, which believe it or not is important and relevant to most people. Also, I tried to include the updated information about Cline introducing the Day of morning for abortion, including with citations to news outlets. I did not make it up ( I could not make it up). Also, I deleted some unnecessary details in this article about the universities and natural wonders in Cline's district. This reads as if it was a candidate authored website blurb, and is completely irrelevant here. Perhaps it could link over to the wikipedia entry on the geographical era?

I have tried to do the right thing by writing about my edits on the Talk page, but instead have been treated as if I was a vandal or something. It almost makes me think that whoever is the editor of this wikipedia article is an employee or this politician or something.

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. 73.147.59.15 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Cline. 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/20100617084700/http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Election_Results/Index.html to http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Election_Results/Index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Revealing failure of end-of-paragraph citation

Please do not conclude that the editing of this day—because it included placement of various inline tags, as well as two section tags—was drive-by in any sense. The actual work included:

• checking the content of each citation that appeared against the text
• completing to a uniform, regular WP standard, the three citations that heretofore had appeared,
• assessing the needs of the text that remained, for its balance and clarity, and
• making minor changes to the text, in particular to improve the appearance of balance (e.g., through removal of puffery, etc.).

In addition to these things, I made the voting precentages to appear uniform, using the fact that some of the data heretofore appearing was to two significant figures (i.e., XX%) while other occurrences were to as many as four figures (i.e., XX.XX%); in this, because of the appear of only two figures in some sentences, two figures was what was made uniform, with rounding according to usual mathematical principles. (Note, in many cases, the highly precise figures were completely unsourced.)

In particular, I would note that:

• the end-of-paragraph citations did not support the entire paragraph to which they were affixed, so inline tags were used make clear the which of the interior sentences of the paragraph remain unsourced, and
• the section tags summarise the major issue that was revealed, and call its attention to editors, widely, so that it might be receive attention and be remediated.

In closing, I believe that end-of-paragraph citations are a poor scholarly approach to indicating paragraph content sourcing, both because:

• in good faith, it easily allows for later, naive sloppiness that results in violations of WP:VER—e.g., when a two sentence paragraph fully covered by an end-of-paragraph citation has later unsourced sentences inserted, valid in terms of placement but invalid because of lack of verifiability, and because
• it can be misused, inadvertently or perniciously, to make it appear the entire bodies of text are reliable (insofar as text in compliance with WP:VER is reliable)—e.g., when a section or article is tagged, but after addition of a few end-of-paragraph citations incompletely covering the content of those paragraphs, the section or article tags are removed.

We need to do much better at making clear to readers what content is reliable, and what content is not. Placing a minimal number of citations so that tags can be removed does a disservice to the encyclopedia. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding citations when this protection appeared. I am glad of it, if only that it should slow down the editor reverting all my careful source work changes. By the way, this talk section (above) was added after the very first of my edits, hours ago. Cheers. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Committee assignments

Ben_Cline#Committee_assignments

As that Ben Cline is no longer a member of the VA House of Delegates and has not been at all this session, this section needs to be changed to past tense if it's even relevant anymore as that it doesn't actually list his past committee assignments. Evilrobert (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)