Talk:Jim Suttle

Recall

Why has nothing been said about the recall attempt? http://nebraska.watchdog.org/9512/recall-clock-now-ticking/ --198.209.32.198 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

dislike

stating that people dislike him is a attack? hardly.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

He is a politician , at least half the people want their friend in his job, not notable partisan issues belong on facebook not here, this is an encyclopedia not a protest article, thanks. What we want is notable stuff about his life story. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Such as not doing well at his job.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also one link out of a dozen was facebook.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You did add 11 news articles, but most of those were about the effort to remove snow. None contained any direct criticism of the mayor himself and some were not even on the same issues, such as the potholes articles. Others, were links to message boards for user comments. Again this is not a partisan attack board.--Go2102 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes about the effort to remove snow and his mishandling of it. You are trying to argue with facts.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they were just about the actual process of moving the snow. There were articles about the progress, but none contained any wording indicating that it was anything near "grossly inadequate" as you have mentioned. --Go2102 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

snow removal

Shouldn't something be said about his mishandling of the snow storm and the countless deaths attributed to it?--174.71.89.43 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I just do not think it is appropriate to list snow removal and impeachment on his page. It would be different if either of these were major issues, but this does not seem to be the case. If the best source we can get is user comments on a news site, where it seems to be about half and half on snow removal, and the impeachment being around 100 people on a facebook page, are those really up to the standards of wikipedia? It just does not seem objective to me, perhaps we should take them off until proper sourcing can be found? I don't want to get in an edit war here, so would that be acceptable? --go2102 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go2102 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)