Talk:Doug Gansler

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Maryland High‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Fritzschantz appears to be a sole-purpose user, who deletes any unfavorable information from the Doug Gansler page. I have reverted the most recent edit, and submit the issue for discussion here, whether the Attorney General's public censure by Maryland's highest court, is appropriate for his entry. I believe it is notable because it is fairly unusual for a state's attorney to be censured, and because was the first. --Athoughtforyou (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference you have is a dry pdf file. If the event is notable, then it would be covered in newspapers, magazines, websites that are reliable sources, etc. Unless you find sources like that, I think it should be removed.

Also, the editor removing it is not committing vandalism, as you indicated in your edit summary. It is best practice to leave an edit summary, or bring it to talk, but it's not vandalism.

Furthermore, if Fritzschantz is a "sole-purpose user" then what are you? What else have you edited besides this page in the past 2+ years? There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but it's weird that you're pointing it out --CutOffTies (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That second footnote takes you to BNET, which is described as a CBS News business network. That seems pretty reliable. If anything, I need to figure out how to get the footnote back at the bottom. Secondly, I'm not a frequent editor on these pages, but I left an edit summary for why I put the material back in, and Fritzschantz just deleted it again with no edit summary and without taking it to the discussion page. I've done both. In reading the edit war and vandalism policies I thought that repeated deletions without discussion amounted to vandalism. In any case, I'll add the BNET footnote, and consider views on whether this source is reliable.--Athoughtforyou (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean now. It looks like Fritz removed the source. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20031113/ai_n10058359/. When that source is put back in (if you need help let me know), I believe the content should certainly stay.

Some guidelines you may want to read:

Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners

wp:revert

wp:vandalism

--CutOffTies (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign ad?

This article reads like one long campaign advertisement for Doug Gansler--glowing and effusive.

It doesn't seem objective at all. Who wrote it? His staffers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.61.129 (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. This reads like a campaign issue statement. I have added the advert template to the top.Earlopogous 04:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So, If everyone agrees that this is an un-paid-for, illegal campaign ad, why is it still up? (I can't get any Wiki-ers to fix my login, but my username is FutureImperfect). I'm reporting it to noticeboard for Bios of Living Persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.124.34 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]