Jump to content

Talk:Christine Gregoire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

"President Obama is about to nominate outgoing Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire as the new head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a very private prediction from a very senior source in Washington’s congressional delegation." http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/01/04/gregoire-emerges-as-top-contender-to-boss-epa/ 204.47.49.150 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Rossi Won rants. JakeZ 12:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted material putatively about driver's licenses. There's no source cited. It's laid out badly in the flow of the article. Even if true, it would be a matter of state policy, and there's no link demonstrated as to why such an observation is meaningful in an article about Gregoire, and not, say, the Department of Licensing. Hal (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Contributions

[edit]

The new section added by TransparencyHawk, Campaign Contributions, violates the core Wikipedia policy of a neutral point of view and no original research, and therefore has been reverted to before the edits were made.

The edits present content that deviate from fact, and instead attempt to provide original analysis of material, including biased based content and opinion from openly partisan blogs.

Citations to newspaper reports should be statements of fact. The citations from the PI should be restricted to facts, not opinion or point of view. Citations from blogs are generally not acceptable as reliable sources.

The issues with these edits are too significant to simply edit to adjust them - hence reverting them. However, given the large amount of money in this race, it makes sense to have a section that touches on the topic, and presents the facts in an unbiased, fair manner, and future edits that restore the section must strive to follow the core policies of a neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability. Dankirkd (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion by Dankirkd appears on its face to be POV white washing. The WP:NPOV policy clearly states: "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Furthermore, "...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." And while the two pundits mentioned are surely biased as you state, the other sources cited clearly meet the standards for reliable sources WP:Reliable. However, by citing two pundits from different sides of the political spectrum, this editor was simply striving for balance WP:NEU#Balance. The claim that the edits represent original research are similarly fallacious WP:OR. Reliable sources were cited, and the content was directly related to the topic of the article WP:LIVING. On these grounds, I am reverting the article to include the edits as originally made. TransparencyHawk (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No white washing going on. I see you removed the blog references, so that's good. However, quoting someone who probably has no knowledge of the details hardly passes the factual test, and doesn't let readers form their own opinions based on the facts, whatever they may be. Dankirkd (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sections added by TransparencyHawk violate the very standards he defends. As he correctly notes, The WP:NPOV policy clearly states: "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Furthermore, "...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." His revisions do nothing of the sort and are inaccurate.

The revision per the June 12 article is incorrect because the topic of the article was about the Tribes contributions to the Washington State Democratic Park, not contributions to Gregoire.

The revision per the June 24 article is also incorrect. The article dealt with groups that gave money to fund the recount, not her election.

Furthermore, TransparencyHawks revisions are totally devoid of context and do not present all viewpoints in the story. The revisions do not reflect the significant parties in the story. Given TransparencyHawk's high regard for the neutrality standards, I find it unusual that quotes were cherry picked out of each article that did not do justice to the full content of the reporting and seemingly put the governor in a unfair negative light. Further, the content, timing and order of the revisions all points to a specific message being advanced about the governor's history, one, from the entire context of the articles, is not as clearly stated as TracyparencyHawk would like it to be.

Therefore, I removed the revisions that were inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photog357 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added back the sections removed because the editing summary made no reference to the reason content was deleted. If the decision is being made to question edits because they violate neutral point of view standards, then make the description of the edit reflect that. Dankirkd (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I have revised the posts to reflect the NPOV standards. My bad. Photog357 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see some healthy discussion on this topic -- one question I haven't seen explicitly raised, that is probably important, is this: How much weight should be given to this funding source, in an article that is a biography of the person's whole life? I think that often with politicians, it's easy to assign more weight to an issue that has to do with a contemporary campaign, than is appropriate. I'm not deeply familiar with this subject or with Gregoire, but my view is that it's probably an issue worth mentioning in a few sentences, but that it shouldn't have an entire section to itself. -Pete (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other concern -- is it misleading to refer to "Indian tribes" in a generic way? In Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs have, in recent history, been in direct opposition to the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. I believe the same issue has spurred the record political contributions in Washington, as in Oregon; the Wam Springs tribe wants an off-reservation casino in the Columbia River Gorge, but other tribes (including Washington's Yakama) oppose the casino. So, it could be that the Yakama have supported Gregoire, while describing them generically as "Indian tribes" glosses over the fact that other important Indian tribes oppose her.
Like I said, I'm not too familiar with this issue in the Washington aspect -- so this is just something to think about, I'm not asserting it as fact. -Pete (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Points well made. TransparencyHawk appears to be making edits that focus on campaign contributions and whether they have been made for political gain for the contributor. I don't know about other people, but groups that make campaign contributions are always hopeful that the candidate they make them to will be friendly to their cause. So I don't see the factual relevance given there has been no proof that favors have been made in return for said contributions.
As for specific tribes, the original compact at issue was with the Spokane tribe, after which 27 other tribes signed on. While normally I wouldn't reference a blog for information, on this particular topic, I think the explanations provided at http://www.horsesass.org/?p=2487 and at http://www.horsesass.org/?p=5068 are cogent and informative. Tribes that have been mentioned as having made contributions are the Swinomish and Tulalip (AP: Questions raised about contributions from tribes to Gregoire). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankirkd (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style

[edit]

Please explain how this edit complies with WP:SS. The whole point of having a main article is so that excessive detail, such as the majority of the vote count dispute section, can be contained in the main article then summaries of that main article are used in other articles associated with the main article. While some of the details may be "lost" in this article, all of these details are included in the Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 article, where they should be. It is also questionable how the machinations of the Washington electoral system (as flawed as it may be) is important to Gregoire's biography. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that guideline stipulates text may be split, but not deleted. Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 is almost entirely unsourced, where the information you removed was sourced very well, was neutral and accurate. If you find a way to merge the information from here to there without losing any of the sources and while maintaining the overall integrity of the information, I don't mind seeing it removed from this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Perhaps we could use something similar to how Rossi's article handled the vote count dispute. If we included slightly modified versions of paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 of the sectionin the Rossi article in this article, it seems to cover the entire saga in enough detail that the point is made, while not going into excessive details like this article does. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CC, the solution to the sourcing problem on the 2004 election article is to add sources to that article, not leave excessive information here. Even without it being properly sourced, that article includes all of the information that you are defending here and the sources can be moved from here to there. It really isn't that difficult. Additionally, summarizing a section invariably means that certain details are eliminated from the article. If every little detail were included, then it wouldn't be a very good summary, would it? :) --Bobblehead (rants) 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I guess what I'm saying is that the information should be moved to the article on the 04 election. That article is written very, very poorly though (and very poorly sourced), so I would want to preserve the exact phrasing and sources used in this article, since I have gone through and verified that all the text is actually in those sources and that it's all neutral. From there, that information in that section in this article can be compressed in whatever way you like, provided it remains sourced and neutral. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, all of the information that is currently in the 2004 election section in this article is already included in the main article about the election. If you have concerns about poor writing and sourcing of the 2004 elections article, then you are more than welcome to edit that article to improve the quality of the writing and its sourcing. It is not, however, a valid reason for leaving excessive details in this article. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was sort of inviting you to do that, since you're the one who wants it removed. The information may be the same, but the text itself hasn't undergone the level of scrutiny that I've applied to everything I've written today. This is what I mean when I say I've verified everything. I spent a lot of time writing that today and I don't feel like I want to spend the rest of my day trying to merge the two topics. Is it ok if we leave that project for tomorrow? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama image

[edit]

Images should really have something to do with the section they are in, otherwise they are pointless decoration that only clutter the page. Can someone explain how an image of her and Barack Obama is related to Gregoire's personal life?--Bobblehead (rants) 04:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion, apparently this image is a distraction. As the photographer/contributor, I'm removing it to resolve all issues. Hal (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So maybe you can explain why you're trying to insert an image on the Olympic Coastal Marine Sanctuary when that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture of the event at Key Arena is higher because it fits there. If we throw a bunch of images from 2008 in that section it will clutter up the bottom of the page. Our goal is to have a lot of high quality, aesthetically pleasing images spaced appropriately throughout the article. The way it is now accomplishes this goal and makes the article look much better. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasoning for adding an image of Gregoire at the Olympic Coastal Marine Sanctuary agreement signing is because the image is free (yay!), related to her work as governor (yay!), and actually took place in the 2006 legislative session (yay again!). Images that are just placed willy nilly throughout the article without regard to the text in which they are placed with, as you have done, are actually detrimental to the article as images create certain expectations about the content of the text they are placed next to. (see Wikipedia:Image#Image_choice_and_placement for additional information) If an image does not have a relationship to the text that it is placed next to it has a tendency to confuse readers because they try to explain why that image was placed there. As an example, check out the articles for John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama, you'll notice that all of the images that are used are actually related to the section that they are included in and this is true of all the quality articles within Wikipedia. Images on Wikipedia are not used just for decoration, they are meant to provide additional encyclopedic content for readers.
  • Aside from not being related to the text it is placed next to, the Obama image you have added violates WP:MOS#Images in that it forces a size on the image, Gregoire's is looking away from the text in the section, and the caption is not punctuated properly. The image is also better suited to the upright parameter (portrait alignment), rather than the default landscape alignment. When you reverted my edit the first time, I left the image in the article and fixed the MOS issues...
  • On the image of Gregoire pointing at the door, again, the image is not related to the section it is included in, it's related to the section below it, so that's why I moved it there. The caption violates WP:DATE because it links a month and year when nothing portrayed in the image is not historically important to them. The image is also better suited to the upright parameter than the default landscape.
Rather than blind reverting changes, perhaps you should try to understand why they happened and if you aren't sure, ask on the discussion page. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, all of the images currently in the article are free. So I don't buy that you went scouting for that one when you have a whole range of free images already in place. You also added it right next to the sections concerning the debate currently raging over tribal gaming, so I suspect your heart was not actually in the right place here and that you were attempting to insert a subtle POV into this article. If you want to nitpick over MOS issues in the captions of those images, go right ahead. If you want to remove dates and times or add dates or remove months or whatever I don't care. I strongly dispute the size limitation and I'm going to ask you to point me to the part of the MOS that enforces the 150px limit. If you move the Key Arena image to the right side of the article, you break the formatting. If the MOS requires people to be facing the text, I will move it lower, but once again we risk cluttering the lower portions of this article with images. In fact, you should probably go ahead and quote me that section too. As for the picture of the door, again, this is a formatting issue and if it moves any lower it breaks into the polling and results sections. I would and do disagree with that move. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright well that looks absolutely terrible. Tomorrow I will expand the section on the 2008 election. I don't want the text forked out of this article because a) that section needs to be updated and expanded and b) it will help find a place for these images. I will likewise update the article on the 2008 gubernatorial election accordingly. We may also want to crosspost one or both of these images since they are somewhat relevant to that race. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Apparently you didn't follow the link to WP:MOS#Images. Other links for MOS on images are Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size. There is no guideline forcing 150px, the MOS is to not force any size unless it is required so that a user's preferences are used. Neither one of the images you have added need to have a larger image size as both are easily understood at the default size. As for you comment about POV and whether or not I went to go look for the image.. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You are allowed to question the inclusion of the image using reasoning that is inline with Wikipedia's policy if you wish, but you are not allowed to assume I have an ulterior motive in adding the image and make baseless attacks. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've written a couple of paragraphs today and, while it looks a little better, it still isn't great. I'll do some more work tomorrow and see if I can't expand that section further and hopefully put both images in there. If we need to, I can also flip the second image so she faces the text on the left side. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping an image just so it meets Wikipedia's guidelines isn't allowed (WP:MOS#Images again). You need to have a good reason to do so. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please remember that the 2008 election section is supposed to be a summary of the main election article. Don't add content to this article just because you want to make more space to add images to that section. Any content that is added to this article should also be added to the main election article. One suggestion would be to just remove the image of Gregoire pointing at the door and move the image of her with Nickels and Obama down to that section. I don't see how the image adds anything encyclopedic to the article. If you want an image of Gregoire at a campaign event, perhaps one of her actually giving one of her stump speeches would be more appropriate. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you don't. From the look of the pictures on flickr, she was giving a stump speech. And I'm not expanding that section solely to make room for images, but to provide more information about the 2008 race. It still doesn't have a great deal of information there, but after I spend a little more time with it, I'm sure I can fill it out more. Then, I'll expand the article on the 2008 race, but for the time being this is what I'll be concentrating on. If you want to expand the other article, go for it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys please do a better job of signing your entries and lining them up so others can follow what is in response to what? Thanks. Dankirkd (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

[edit]

I propose the title of this article be changed to Chris Gregoire, as that is how the press generally refers to her, and that is the name she uses on her official website as well as the state website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.119.71 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris is only used around election times, and I've always figured it was to trick ignorant people who wouldn't vote for a female candidate into thinking they were voting for a male candidate. Before elections, it's always Christine. 98.125.129.9 (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol display

[edit]

This section doesn't belong in this article. It probably belongs in something like List of controversies started by Bill O'Reilly, but the Governor has absolutely nothing to do with it. To call a controversy would be POV since she didn't start it, she didn't approve the display, she didn't clear it to be put up, but since O'Reilly blamed her for it, she's being associated with it. Rob McKenna has already issued a joint statement with Governor Gregoire saying it's a nonissue and that nobody in the executive branch participated in the approval, and that it's constitutionally permitted.

On the same token, this has absolutely nothing to do with the 2008 legislative session. It's not part of the legislative agenda, and it does not involve any bills that had ever been considered. In fact, the session ended over 9 months ago. The 2009 legislative session doesn't start for another month. So this really, really doesn't belong here. 24.19.48.159 (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008

[edit]

Noticed there wasn't a 2008 legislative session section. The governor did more then campaign in 2008 (toys, sex offenders, tribes, Boeing, etc). Any thoughts on what is notable enough to be included? I also added info on the unions suing her. Please edit as appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal

[edit]

The 2nd and 3rd sentences sound like her campaign ads. Is there a good source available? Her .gov page doesn't go into that much detail so am just curious.Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the lines. They can be found unsourced on a few other wikis. I have no problem with painting an image of a humble farm girl from a broken home who grew up working the fields and cooking but it needs to be verifiable and neutral.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Brilliant

[edit]

An editor lobbying to save the Morton Brilliant article from deserved deletion has made the WP:POINTy addition of the trivia fact that Brilliant used to work for Gregoire. Since none of the other gubernatorial biographies mention former spokespersons, and since this article 24 hours ago didn't mention any of Gregoire's staffers, it makes very little sense to add a sentence mentioning a single ex-staffer when far more important staffers go unmentioned. Any editors disagree? THF (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amasingly enough, Brilliant was NUMBER ONE in the Gregoire recount campaign, and THF has repeatedly deleted a properly cited RS account of that. No one was "more important" in the recount campaign, and Brillian was repeatedly cited as the sole spokesman for the Gregoire camp. The deiste to sabotage this article in order to cause the deletion of the Morton Brillian article is transparent at this point. Especially since THF made the point that soince MB was "not mentioned" here, that therefore he was not notable enough to have his own article with over a dozen RS cites <g>. Collect (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Collect (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some context about why him being Gregoire's spokesperson is important enough to mention in this article, I'm going to have to agree with THF that just saying that Brilliant was Gregoire's spokesperson is unnecessary trivia... --Bobblehead (rants) 21:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will gladly add more meat toi the relevance -- rather than excising it in order to bolster AfD debate. Collect (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Him being referenced in this article should not influence if his own article gets through the AFD process. It was put her for that improper reason (assuming of the timing) and not really worked in properly.Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a specific section on the 2004 election and recount, hence he is germane to that (see NYT cite). Collect (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion page was used in your edit summary which is off since you seem to be on the wrong side of the consensus. Kept most of his quotes and reworded to not unbalance the section and article.Cptnono (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I feel you did a good job, unfortuneately some others seem quite determined to keep Brillioan OFF of WP as much as possible. I did not think the material redounded poorly in any way at all on Gregoire, so can hardly think the material was contentious at all otherwise. Again, thanks for trying. Collect (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "edit summary" said the material was "being moved." So far, only deletion has occurred, and no move has occurred. Collect (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long, but when I checked the sources, only one of them actually supported the sentences that they were used in, so I had to remove those sources, and then rewrite it to fit into the campaign article. But, I should have added it to the campaign article first before removing it from here, so that was my bad, but here is the edit of adding it to the campaign article.[1] --Bobblehead (rants) 22:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eqch source specifically had the claims as stated in them, so I am curious what porecise wording you found so inaccurate? {lease add the cites with what you feel is the appropriate quote, so that there will be no question of relevance in that article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the time I edited them, they were not accurate. The Seattle Times source made no mention of the quote it was being used to support, it seems to have been primarily added to establish that Brilliant was Gregoire's campaign spokesperson and that was already established by the USAToday article. It could also be construed that the reason why The Seattle Times article was used was to tie Gregoire to the Cox incident. The quote being sourced to the NY Times article was actually out of the USAToday article. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IOW, as I originally stated the claims and the cites, they were, in fact, correct. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth

[edit]

It says she was born in Auburn, WA in the infobox, but when you read the article, a cited sentence says, "Gregoire, born Christine O'Grady, was born in Adrian, Michigan[2] and raised in Auburn Washington"

Thats a mistake right?? It should say she was born in Adrian, Michigan in the infobox. Anon134 (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

I propose removing the platforms out of the lead. The budget could easily receive a paragraph of info and leading the reader to the inclusion that it was completely successful is a concern. Also, should we put in that she pushed to raise sin taxes or is that not as cool as same sex marriage benefits (which needs much more explanation)?Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election Hasn't occured

[edit]

Succeeded by Rob McKenna?

How is that possible when there hasn't been election to determine who the next Governor will be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.124.46 (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's for Attorney General, not Governor. 98.125.129.9 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Union lawsuits

[edit]
  • four separate unions representing state workers filed lawsuits against the governor for suggesting that the workers' pay raises be dropped as part of addressing the looming state budget deficit.
Does anyone know what the result(s) of these lawsuits was/were??

Quis separabit? 19:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christine Gregoire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Christine Gregoire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Christine Gregoire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christine Gregoire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Women's shelter article

[edit]

Wikipedia's Women's shelter includes accusation against Christine Gregoire where i could find no reliable source. Have posted concern at Talk:Women's_shelter. --EarthFurst (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christine_Gregoire&oldid=1251565146"