| This page is part of WikiProject State Legislatures, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to state legislatures.
If you have any questions or comments please e-mail Tyler at firstname.lastname@example.org.
|This page is part of WikiProject Washington, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to Washington. Check out the project page.|
Discussion about edits to Troy Kelley's profile
There are several inaccuracies in this article, and I propose that we update the biography section. First I will list the inaccuracies: 1) Kelley is a Lieutenant Colonel in the National Guard, not the Army Reserves (https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.sao.wa.gov/EN/About/Pages/Troy_Kelley.aspx). While the National Guard is a component of the reserves, it is not the Army Reserves and should be changed. 2) The biography section should also include Kelley's past work as an audit team leader for the SEC and his work in the federal prosector's office (see the citation above). 3) In the 'lawsuit section' Old Republic Title is a title insurance company, not an 'escrow company' as the article claims (http://www.oldrepublictitle.com/newnational/Index.asp). 4) It might be a good idea to include some of the work Kelley has done while in office, such as the performance audits he has released (http://www.sao.wa.gov/EN/Audits/PerformanceAudit/Pages/PerformanceAudit.aspx (dead link)) which have focused on public safety, services to the state's most vulnerable populations, and saving tax payer dollars. He has also put a focus on the Local Government Performance Center, which provides resources to local governments to help improve their operations and deliver more value at less cost to taxpayers (http://www.sao.wa.gov/EN/Audits/PerformanceAudit/PerformanceCenter/Pages/About.aspx (dead link)).
I added this note to User talk:Mmillerfsm08:
Thank you for your interest and participation in Ballotpedia. I want to apologize for not reaching out to you last week when you first edited Troy Kelley's page. When knowledgeable users edit on the wiki, it helps underscore our mission to provide accurate, nonpartisan information about state government through open staff-public user collaboration. But in order for that to happen, we need to ensure the lines of communication are as open as they are for editing. I should have written on your talk page or Kelley's talk page earlier to explain why I reverted your edits and to give you the opportunity to explain the changes you made.
It's important that users like yourself are familiar with Ballotpedia editing procedures so situations like the revolving door of edits to Kelley's profile page can be avoided and then prevented in the future. Here are a couple pages outlining the writing guidelines for editing on the wiki:
Although I reverted your removal of the lawsuit controversy summary, notice that I considered your comments when reworking the existing text as well as added more references to address your concerns. If you wish to discuss the page any further, you can contact me here or on my user talk page. MStrano 06:47, 23 October 2012 (CDT)
- I have once again reverted the page to include the prior version of the lawsuit section. If there are any addition edits to that section, they should first be discussed on the discussion page. Thank you. --Geoff Pallay 08:08, 28 October 2012 (CDT)
I have several questions and suggestions about this page. Both the 'lawsuit' section and the section with the scorecard seem out of place, or at least lacking context. Advertising some of Kelley's opponent's more outrageous claims in the lawsuit section seems like overkill, especially after the issue has been vetted by the public. I would propose explaining that Kelley was sued by a company with whom he did business, and nothing ever came of the charges. The reason I suggest this, is because right now the paragraph seems contradictory. For instance, the paragraph broadcasts Kelley's opponent's argument that Kelley is unfit for office and references an endorsement interview with the Seattle Times. Later in the section, in parentheses, we learn that the Times endorsed Kelley. So it would be safe to assume that the members of the editorial board, a group much less biased than Kelley's opponent, did not agree with him, in fact they called his claims "a series of mudslinging distortions." They go on to talk about the website published by Kelley's opponents and the claims the site makes saying "none of these claims were ever substantiated." (http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2019417862_editauditorxml.html). So why give credence to such blatantly political claims?
The section of the scorecard, it seems that context is severely lacking. Should we define the group -- a libertarian think tank modeled on the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC? This is an interest group, and without properly identifying their interest, this is misleading to an average reader. Also, if they are supporting legislation, should they have a 501c(3) tax status?
Response from mmilerfsm08
here are my comments: 1) we should remove controversy from the title, Kelley doesn't argue whether or not he was sued, only the validity of claims that were not in the cause of action in the suit. 2) Watkins didn't 'resurrect' anything. He published court documents, many of which he only published selected pages (i.e. pages 2, 48 - 40, leaving out the rest). They were already in the public domain. 3) Kelley is still in the private sector, so "during his tenure" doesn't seem to fit.
The rest I'm fine with. But the sentence which starts "Watkins claim" reads funny. Maybe there is a way to clarify it.
- I am fine with the title change, as well as the change in #2 and #3. Thanks for responding. --Geoff Pallay 14:05, 28 October 2012 (CDT)
Editing on this page
I added this note to User talk:Mmillerfsm08:
- "How is a local NPR affiliate poor sourcing? You need to explain your removal of this information better before taking that content off a page. Polycal 19:09, 19 October 2012 (CDT)"