A tag has been placed on Libia gil, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. _SUBWAYguy 00:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Richard werlin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. _SUBWAYguy 00:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Cheryl Cox, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:Cheryl Cox. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Maura Larkins I am the author of the original article on Cheryl Cox. I was working to remove any unverified material when another author, probably someone working for Cheryl Cox, erased by entire article, which I had edited severely, WITH A PAGE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE WHO CLEARLY WAS NOT TRYING TO BE UNBIASED. I recognize the newspaper article from which these new statements were cherry-picked. THE ENTIRE ARTICLE SHOULD BE INCLUDED, OR NONE OF IT. I CONTEST THE NEUTRALITY OF THE PERSON WHO DELETED MY EDITED ARTICLE.Mauralarkins 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! _SUBWAYguy 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if you go here [1] you will be able to see your previous version of the Cheryl Cox article and compare it to the current version _SUBWAYguy 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid making baseless accusations such as [2] and [3]. I have no special interest in either Barbara Comstock or Cheryl Cox aside from trying to see that Wikipedia articles about living persons contain only verifiable information for properly attributed sources. Despite your claims, when I began editing these articles, there were no verifiable sources WHATSOEVER provided in either -- nothing, nada, zippo. If you want to improve the articles, you are certainly welcome to do so. But please cite your sources. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bkonrad. I corrected your mistake regarding when Cheryl Cox was elected as mayor, and whom she ran against. I also noted that she was a CVESD school board member before becoming mayor. It was her main claim to fame before she was elected.

I also added some sources to your Cheryl Cox article. Your sources were mostly Cheryl's campaign material.

Here are the three newspaper articles I added:

Padilla criticizes Cox's record on test scores, finances, secrecy By Tanya Mannes UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER October 13, 2006 www.signonsandiego accessed 2007-1-6

New authority figure Ex-teacher wants to bring a 'sense of order' to council By Tanya Mannes UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER October 19, 2006 www.signonsandiego accessed 2007-1-5

Steve Padilla is the Best Choice to Lead Chula Vista into the Future November 3, 2006 Editorial (Daniel Muñoz, editor) La Prensa San Diego laprensa-sandiego.org accessed 2007-1-6

Yours truly, Maura Larkins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.239.209 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bkonrad: Here are some sources I was working on when you erased my entire Cheryl Cox article. They concern the superintendent, Libia Gil, whose actions Cheryl supported.

Source 1: http://www.teachermag.net/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug=07Seattle.h23 By John Gehring oct 15, 2003 Education Week A community- based advisory committee recommended holding out on hiring any of the final four candidates. The first finalist to drop out was Joan Kowal, the superintendent-in-residence at Nova Southeastern University in Miami and a former superintendent of the 25,000-student Hayward Unified School District in California. Ms. Kowal was dogged by allegations of financial mismanagement in previous leadership positions. She referred to "a concerted campaign of undocumented rumors, allegations, and innuendo around my candidacy" in a letter to the board withdrawing her name. The next was Libia Gil, the chief academic officer of New American Schools, a school reform organization based in Alexandria, Va., and a former superintendent of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, the largest K-6 district in California. In an e-mail to the school board removing herself from contention, Ms. Gil cited the "polarization" of the selection process. Given the negative response to the final candidates, Mr. Harvey believes the school board made the best decision in hiring Mr. Manhas. John Dunn, the president of the Seattle Education Association, applauded the selection of Mr. Manhas at the same time he lambasted the search process and what he viewed as the poor quality of the final candidates.

Source 2: http://www.newamericanschools.org/news/newsviewer.asp?highlightID=441&docID=714 McGraw Prize for Education Leadership Winner: Dr. Libia Gil Brings Award-winning Expertise to a National Level (9.24.02) September 24, 2002 Recently Named Chief Academic Officer for New American Schools Set, Maintained High Academic Standards as Supt. in Chula Vista Elementary Schools Washington, D.C. – Libia S. Gil, who will officially join New American Schools (NAS) on October 1 as its Chief Academic Officer, today received one of three of the prestigious $25,000 Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education.

Source 3: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=websupegil06&date=20031006&query=libia+gil Monday, October 06, 200 Gil withdraws from Seattle superintendent search By Sanjay Bhatt Seattle Times staff reporter Libia Socorro Gil, the former superintendent at Chula Vista Elementary School District in California, confirmed today that she has withdrawn her candidacy for superintendent of Seattle Public Schools... The Seattle School Board has scheduled a 7 p.m. meeting tomorrow to vote on the finalists. Prior to that, it will meet behind closed doors in executive session... Gil, 56, has been chief academic officer at New American Schools in Alexandria, Va., since 2002. For nine years, she was superintendent at Chula Vista, where she was credited with giving schools more autonomy in making decisions, supporting the creation of charter schools and trimming the size of the central administration. The district won a vote of public confidence in 1998 when a $95 million school-renovation bond measure was approved by 76 percent. Gil also worked in the Seattle School District from 1986 to 1993. She was assistant superintendent for curriculum and instructional support, and held other managerial positions. Waldman said she wasn't surprised by Gil's withdrawal. Last week a majority of the board's search advisory committee recommended the School Board not choose from the four finalists and postpone a decision... Maura Larkins

Please delete your article. Why would you use campaign statements as a basis for writing an article?Mauralarkins 22:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of being the same person as BKonrad, as you did here [4]. That is a very serious accusation; see WP:SOCK. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. _SUBWAYguy 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply apologize for thinking you and Bkonrad were the same person. Looking over the record, I see that you are completely different. You are easy-going and polite, and you like to nudge people, rather than slash them. I have lost a lot of respect for Wikipedia after witnessing Bkonrad's antics. He is far too hostile and defensive to do a good job as an administrator. I'll never look at a Wikipedia article in the same way again. :Mauralarkins

I did assume good faith. I expected to be fully reassured when I tested the editing process by doing research on Barbara Comstock. I was disappointed. Mauralarkins 00:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Barbara Comstock article that was deleted. It was a fascinating experiment. I think deleting it was inappropriate, but, more importantly, I learned how very subjective the deleting process is.

Barbara Comstock was the chief spokesperson for the United States Department of Justice and Attorney General John Ashcroft. She strongly supported the USA PATRIOT ACT, as evidenced by the following statement about the Jose Padilla decision, written by Ms. Comstock, and published by the US Department of Justice on March 11, 2002: "In times of war, the President must have the authority to act when an individual associated with our nation's enemies enters our country to endanger American lives. The President's ability to gather intelligence to protect the American people from terrorist attacks is an important tool in the War on Terrorism. The Department will review today's opinion in light of our duty to take all steps possible within the law to protect the American people."

She appeared for an (interview on CNN in September 2002. CNN anchor Kris Osborn asked her, "In the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the failure to stop the attacks in advance, the government is asking citizens to report suspicious activity. Critics ask, what is exactly suspicious activity?...But how do you go about maintaining a delicate or precarious balance, you might say, between on the one hand vigilance and caution and being properly informed and passing things along and then not spying on your fellow friends?" Comstock responded that we must rely on the common sense of our citizens.

Comstock also appeared in the documentary Celsius 41.11. In 2003, Barbara Comstock left her job at the Justice Department and joined the law firm of Blank Rome Government Relations LLC.

Sources:

Barbara Comstock statement on Patriot Act from DOJ website

September 2002 CNN interview with Barbara Comstock

Celsius 41.11

Blank Rome law firm

Maura Larkins

I just clicked on the above links, and I discovered Barbara Comstock's page at the Blank Rome law firm is no longer at that address. But anyone who's interested can Google her. Maura Larkins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.239.209 (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I deeply apologize for thinking you and Bkonrad were the same person. Looking over the record, I see that you are completely different. You are easy-going and polite, and you like to nudge people, rather than slash them. I have lost a lot of respect for Wikipedia after witnessing Bkonrad's antics. He is far too hostile and defensive to do a good job as an administrator. I'll never look at a Wikipedia article in the same way again.Mauralarkins 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Regarding the Wikipedia entry in dispute, you might want to check out WP:DR _SUBWAYguy 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, What I am referring to: [5] _SUBWAYguy 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who edited my own work. I forgot to sign in, so I went back and signed in. I guess it looked like I was editing someone else's work. I agree with you regarding editing spelling or grammar. There is often more than one way to spell a word, and often grammar that is theoretically correct sounds stilted and unnatural. So I like to focus on what people are saying, not how they are saying it. Thanks for your guidance, Subwayguy. Maura Larkins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.239.209 (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]