Draft talk:Susan Collins

Okay so here's a run-down
You didn't format your references properly. If you want to cite your references, cite them individually; don't scrunch two as one citation. Also, your references need to be formatted themselves. There is a particular format that goes one way.

Finally your references and your claim don't really line up. What point are you making by using cross-out on the claim Susan Collins is a "Trump Hack"? Are you trying to parody "liberals"? Are you trying to parody the Lincoln Project, who launched ads attacking Susan Collins for not holding Trump as accountable as he should (which isn't much reason to mock)? Why are you using BuzzFeed and RawStory as sources? Do you know this community is usually skeptical of those sources too? Also, why did you categorize Susan Collins as Category:Liberals? Is it because she's a moderate Republican? That doesn't qualify her as a "liberal". Your article might be a draft right now (keep in mind, this means "eventually will go on mainspace"), but a lot of it has been problematic and I don't see it excusing your revert of my edit. 23:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm trying to parody the Lincoln Stinkin' Project, because their claim that Collins "never stands up to Trump" is absurd. Also, Collins' overall record is liberal; how else do you describe someone who voted against cloture for a bill banning late-term abortions? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The ad's point is not to be consistent or keep the details but to lambast Collins for only acting as the moderate. When prompted to vote on impeachment, she voted for acquittal despite all the evidence, which prompted the attack ad on her dishonesty. But on the other hand, it's an attack ad, by a bunch of disillusioned Republicans to boot (something our community are not "allies" of), that probably fell on deaf ears. It's not worthy to include as a weak snipe against Lincoln Project. It is problematic she voted for acquittal in spite all the evidence and obstruction during the trial, despite casting her as a moderate. Finally, what exactly is your criteria for calling her "liberal"? Do you know that political beliefs are not some linear spectrum between "conservative" and "liberal", even within context of American politics where the Overton window is different from politics in other places of the world? Do you also know that a position on abortion is not some boolean value that translates to being a "liberal" or not? Abortion positions are a spectrum that don't necessarily coincide with political beliefs. Finally, how someone votes on a bill could be several reasons that may not coincide with political belief. e.g. you could be an environmentalist that votes against an environmentalist bill because the provisions are flawed and there are alternatives, or there is problematic pork stuck in the bill, or the bill does not go far enough. This bill would criminalize abortion practitioners after 20 months of pregnancy, which I believe opposing it isn't a matter of being "liberal" or "conservative" but a matter of "goddamn you're taking this a notch way too far" sort of thing. 00:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahem, all the evidence was against Biden, despite mainstream liberal denial. In fact, Biden literally admitted to quid pro joe (see video here, profanity warning). Besides, you're skipping the point that the ad was downright false in claiming that Collins somehow "never" opposed Trump. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No? You're just quibbling over word choice in an attack ad. I did not "skip over it". I said specifically the ad's point is to deliver a punchy line, not necessarily show any sort of nuance or anything. The grander point is that Collins kept to party lines despite her reputation as some "moderate" conservative who'd stand up to Trump (similar to John McCain's facade), even though it's clear in the Trump-Ukraine scandal that Trump has been trying to elicit foreign interference on an election by trying to dig dirt on Biden. It's complete denial to claim "all evidence was against Biden". You're trying to deflect to what Biden did wrong when the topic is already veering off from discussing about how appropriate it is to include some strike out that's supposed to riff on the Lincoln Project and did a bad job at it. 00:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ”quid pro joe” 00:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fucking hell... I know you CPers are high on your own supply, but maybe sober up if you intend to contribute to this wiki while CP is down? Gods fucking damn... 04:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Word to LT: stop expanding the page
23:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of it actually looked fine to be save for the excessive crossouts. 23:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Excessive cross-outs, didn't even address the initial problems, author is CP troll that I don't trust to write competently beyond a bland summary that Wikipedia already does better. 23:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, yeah, but the edits looked fine. 23:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just following the RW format, which means plenty of crossouts and satirical humor. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're fine. There's some bland information, but then you get to see LT's attempt at humor imposed on them and if you remove those attempts, it's not much information left behind. LT doesn't write or use sources competently and too much trouble to clean up after. 23:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I'll add some sources later. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the introductory information isn't that bland. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove the cross-outs? Yeah, it's diet Wikipedia. 23:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed all that stupid strikeout crap, and a shit reference from "rawstory.com" that is a ghastly web broswer-popup nightmare source. The stub is marginally better now. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Why should we care?
Seriously. What is there to debunk or address? The article as it currently stands is mostly whining about her falling in lockstep almost immediately, rather than just immediately. Why should we give a fuck? 23:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GC, what are you specifically referring to? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article as a whole. Currently, if it were to be moved to mainspace, it would be a pointless stub. Why should it continue to exist? What information does it convey? What misinformation does it refute? Why should anyone take time out of their finite existence to read it? Why does it exist? 23:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll probably continue expanding this page and move it to the mainspace when it contains at least 15,000 bytes worth of content. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're dodging my questions LT. 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this probably isn't missional. She's not super significant either. 00:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If a 35,000 byte version of this non-missional article gets moved to mainspace, it'll get nominated for deletion immediately. I'll save anything I have to say about it until that happens. Spud (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)