{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|activepol=yes|class=b|politician-priority=Mid|listas=Rubio, Marco|politician-work-group=yes}}

{{discretionary sanctions|topic=ap|style=long}}

{{WikiProject Cuba|importance=Mid|class=b|listas=Rubio, Marco}}

{{WikiProject Florida|importance=Mid|class=b|listas=Rubio, Marco

| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes

| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes

| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes

| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes

| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes}}

{{WikiProject Miami|importance=high|class=b|listas=Rubio, Marco}}

{{WikiProject United States|class=b|importance=high|HLA=yes|HLA-importance=high}}

{{WikiProject University of Florida|class=b|importance=Mid|listas=Rubio, Marco}}

{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=b|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=B|subject=person}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 3

|minthreadsleft = 1

|minthreadstoarchive = 2

== Is he eligible? ==

Yes, his parents eventually achieved US citizenship, but he was born to illegal immigrants. He's an anchor baby. [[User:Flight Risk|Flight Risk]] ([[User talk:Flight Risk|talk]]) 13:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

:Popcorn, anyone? [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 13:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

== Header ==

{{Ping|SovanDara}}Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=686617259&oldid=686617193 this revert] (unaccompanied by any edit summary), the header originally said "Early life, education, and political career". I changed it to "early life, education, and entry into politics". The reason I changed it is because the word "early" obviously does not apply to the word "education", and readers might therefore think the word "early" likewise does not apply to the word "political career". This section does not cover much of his political career at all, and this should be indicated in the header. So, I will revert to "early life, education, and entry into politics". This is simply a matter of clarity.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 15:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

==BLP noticeboard==

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once.

{{BLP noticeboard|section=109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once}}

[[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 18:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

==Taxes and spending==

The article mentions that "Rubio supports an initiative to limit federal spending growth to the ''per capita inflation rate.''" What is a per capita inflation rate? The rate at which the population inflates? [[Special:Contributions/2A01:79D:7370:99CC:8172:77E2:71EE:3437|2A01:79D:7370:99CC:8172:77E2:71EE:3437]] ([[User talk:2A01:79D:7370:99CC:8172:77E2:71EE:3437|talk]]) 08:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

: Good point. I've updated the article based on the source.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 15:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

== Immigration section ==

This is probably one of the few accomplishments of Rubio as a legislator, and deserves more coverage in the article. Please help expand. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

: This is also discussed in the Tenure section.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

:: That is not enough. A single sentence on his only legislative accomplishment is most definitively not enough. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

== Taxes and spending section ==

That section is unbalanced and not NPOV. His tax plans have been criticized by both the left and the right, and currently we only have content published by the Tax Foundation. If we want to include their opinion, we have to include other views as well for NPOV. Tagged accordingly. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 01:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

: Personally, I'd prefer to keep the projections out entirely. The results inevitably vary widely depending on who's doing the projecting. And the section will become undue indeed if we include all the projections that have been published.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 01:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:I agree with Cwobeel that we need more to balance this out. I disagree with CFredkin that we should exclude projections entirely. Even if we were to include all available projections would not overwhelm the article in any way, namely because only a small number of think tanks/institutes release such projections. (I can think of just three off the top of my head: the Tax Foundation (center-right), the [[Tax Policy Center]] (centrist), and [[Citizens for Tax Justice]] (center-left) <small>+ CBO if a plan has been scored, but most haven't</small>). In any case, if we are going to recite a candidate's tax plan, we would be remiss to not include, in brief, what the expected outcome would be... [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:: OK. Then as a minimum bar for notability, I think we should include content cited by reliable secondary sources.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 04:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:::If we describe Rubio's tax plan at all, then it is obviously notable and relevant to include its projected impact according to reputable sources. Right now, the Tax Foundation (generally viewed as right-leaning) is the only such group to have produced a detailed analysis, as far as I'm aware, and I've restored it with attribution. The Tax Foundation analysis has been cited by numerous secondary sources; I included one, to satisfy CFredkin's concern. If some of the other groups listed by [[User:Neutrality]] above produce analyses of Rubio's tax plan, then they can be added as well, to give a more balanced overview. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 17:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

==Kurtz==

I object to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&curid=5502549&diff=689121825&oldid=689121178 this edit] that removed the analysis by media critic [[Howard Kurtz]]. This eliminates a key perspective, namely the perspective that this is a tempest in a teapot. By eliminating that perspective, and expanding details of the matter ''ad nauseum'' we create the impression that this was a major scandal involving misconduct by Rubio. Please adhere to [[WP:NPOV]], [[User:Neutrality]].[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::The quote is to balance out the description from the Politico headline as a "House of Horrors," right? If we eliminate the in-text reference to a "House of Horrors," would you be OK with eliminating Kurtz?

::Frankly, I think we can safely eliminate both the "House of Horrors" descriptor and the the Kurtz quote. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 03:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::You are not addressing the issue. After the "House of Horrors" descriptor is removed, that still leaves a massive set of detail that you have inserted and the massive insinuation that Rubio was involved in some kind of scandal or misconduct. Kurtz represents a different point of view.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 03:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: In the interests of friendly editing, I've added back the Kurtz quote, plus an additional quote (also favorable to Rubio), pending discussion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=689132680&oldid=689131038].

:::: Also: I am not sure what "massive insinuation" you refer to. If anything, the current language is ''more'' favorable to Rubio than before (in large part because I got rid of unsourced material that was there before, such as the bit about him being "questioned" as part of the federal investigation, which was not supported by the sources).

:::: I'm willing to discuss, but I would like you to be specific about what changes you want to see. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

==Adds/edits==

FYI - I've been adding/expanding this page (there are some sourcing issues that I've been trying to rectify, plus garden-variety expansion). I understand (obviously) that politicians' pages can get contentious, although I think 90% of what I've added should be unobjectionable to anyone. I am happy to engage here on any points. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 03:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::You are making huge changes without any prior discussion. It's fine being bold, but one runs the risk of being reverted that way, especially when many of your edits have removed or altered longstanding material in this BLP. I disagree with some of your edits, and agree with others. Just focusing on Kurtz, we have yet to make any progress. I'm calling it a night. Take care.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 03:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::: Well, I am being bold, as is encouraged. If anyone objects, they are free to take issue, and then I'll discuss. But most of these "huge changes" are (1) garden-variety expansion and (2) removal of weakly-sourced material and addition of stronger-sourced material (removing low-quality sources and replacing them with better ones). I anticipate about 95%+ of my changes are uncontroversial. The remaining 5% can be worked out here.

::: If you have specific issues, let me know and we'll talk it out. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 03:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

== Deletion of material ==

{{u|Eeyoresdream }} is deleting a substantial amount of content without any discussions. I have restored a few of these deletions, as these are properly sourced and required for NPOV. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 17:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

: Objections have been raised about the reliability of the source used for the claims regarding Rubio's involvement with spending and regarding the undue nature of the content regarding Rubio's use of a GOP credit card. I agree that that's an excessive amount of content for an issue that was investigated and resolved without blame assigned.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 19:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:: Many issues in a politician's live are resolved "without blame assigned", and yet these are relevant issues in a bio. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 19:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::: Sure. But whether this issue should be mentioned is not in dispute. What's in dispute is how much content should be included on that subject. The argument is that, based on how the issue was resolved, the amount of content you're adding is excessive.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 20:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: Excessive? See for example [[Tony_Rezko#Real_estate_dealings]]. And Rezko is not running for president. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 21:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::::: Great analogy. But I think the more important question is how much of the Rezko material appears in Obama's bio? The answer is one sentence: "The purchase of an adjacent lot—and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer, campaign donor and friend Tony Rezko—attracted media attention because of Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama."[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC) There's no discussion about the fact that Obama was able to buy the lot for a below-market price, etc.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 21:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::: ???? How is that relevant? The house mortgage issue or the credit card issue in his article can't be presented in any other article. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 21:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::: I don't understand your point...[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 22:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::: My point is that if the Rezko land deal only merits one sentence in Obama's bio (and doesn't even mention the salient issue of the purchase price of the land), how do you justify [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=689213093&oldid=689212726 including 8 sentences] on Rubio's credit card situation (when there's currently 3)?[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:: Section tagged as not NPOV. The material is not UNDUE, for a politician running for President. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::::This talk page section does not identify any particular material. Which material is of most concern? The credit card stuff?[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 19:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::Hello?[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 19:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::# The ''Tampa Bay Times''/''Miami Herald'' analysis

::::::# The credit cards issue

::::::# The foreclosure of the house in Tallahassee due to missed mortgage payments

::::::# The eminent domain legislation paragraphs

:::::: This is the diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=689142018&oldid=689141591] - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 20:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

{{u|Professor JR }} POV tags are there for a reason. Please join in the discussion. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 21:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::I agree with Cwobeel. I would add that the wholesale deletions here totally lack any legitimate policy-based reasons. I'll take the paragraphs in order.

:::# - This is based on a ''Tampa Bay Times''/''Miami Herald'' budget analysis from 2000 to 2008 (Rubio's years in the Legislature). It is highly relevant to understanding a long stretch of his political career. The supposed objection to the "source" of the material is frivolous. Nevertheless, as a compromise, I '''propose''': restoring the material, with an additional mention that the source of the documents was the Florida Office of Policy and Budget.

:::# - The credit card material - a big improvement over the very weak, and in some cases inaccurate, summary before. The weak earlier version is terrible includes "questioned" is terrible because there was no evidence that Rubio was questioned. The older version also gives no sense at all of timeline (i.e., when Rubio had the card). It also relies entirely on 2010 and 2012 articles, while the improved version relies on high-quality articles that are more recent (2015). The old version refers generically to a "Republican Party" card, while the new version specifies that it is a [[Republican Party of Florida]] card. Most disturbingly, the old version omits the fact Rubio was cleared, but was faulted by an investigator for a level of negligence. In sum, the new version was far superior, and explains - more precisely and using high-quality sources - a major event in Rubio's political life.

:::# - The foreclosure material, likewise, was perfectly fine, and a huge improvement over the frankly bad summary given before. The truncated version is devoid of all context whatsoever. It does not explain that Rubio and Riviera were friends. It totally lacks any sense of timeline (such as when they bought the house and when the missed payments). The improved version adds this context and perspective on an important incident that got substantial coverage in 2010 through the present. It complete, if brief, explanation of what happened. No editor has put forth any explanation of why such material is "undue" or improper. Only ''[[ipse dixit]]'' assertions have been made. Simply not acceptable. The objectors need to explain what specific details they would omit, and why.

:::# - The eminent domain paragraphs - unquestionably, my edits to this were a significant improvement. No editor has ever explained the basis for their objections, and I can't think of a single one. The truncated version was inaccurate: it called the committee a "special committee" when it fact it was a select committee. The truncated version omitted the date (2005), the name of the person who appointed Rubio (Allan Bense), the official name of the committee. The new version adds all these details, while adding high-quality sources. (The truncated version also cited only to the ''National Review''). The reflexive reversion back is totally unjustifiable. It boggles the mind, and I am pretty sure any fair-minded, third-party editor would agree.

::: In sum, these wholesale deletions lack any real basis. If people want to talk about ''specific'' points of disagreement, then that's great. But vague assertions are not. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::::# The article referenced is based entirely on documents from Crist's office which were released after they were campaigning against each other. That's not a reliable source.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::::# The edits in question were outrageously excessive and undue. As mentioned above, for comparison, the Rezko land deal gets one sentence in Obama's bio (and doesn't even mention the purchase price of the land, which was the reason it got attention). The issue doesn't need 8 sentences when it currently has 3 already.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

::::#Also ridiculously excessive and undue. The comments about Rubio and Rivera both being rising stars and living together previously, the original purchase price of the house, and the commentary from Kurtz and regarding other families is completely superfluous.

::::#I'm less certain about why these edits were reverted. The edit comment referenced tightening of the text....[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Neutrality and/or Cwobeel, are these four items ordered according to how big of a problem you see? If not, could you please say which of the four you consider to be the biggest problem? I would like to focus on the biggest issue first, get it resolved, and then move on to the next one. Thanks.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 00:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::Well, speaking for myself, I think the omission of the ''Herald''/''Times'' reporting (#1) on 2007-08 budget issues is outrageous. I also think it can be easily resolved if we all agreed to just add a few words noting that the budget info came from a state office. I also think it is misleading in the extreme to note that Rubio was cleared in the credit card ethics commission complaint without ''also'' noting the ethics commission advocate's determination that there was negligence (widely reported by [http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/marco-rubio-finances-republican-party-card/index.html CNN], [http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/marco-rubio-spent-lavishly-on-a-gop-credit-card-but-some-transactions-are/2252470 Tampa Bay Times], and even [http://www.billoreilly.com/b/Bill-OReilly:-Dick-Cheney-shaking-things-up-in-Republican-circles/18724178106268853.html Bill O'Reilly] (!)). When we fail to mention that, it seems like we are soft-peddling.

::::::::I consider #4 the least important, but the easiest to resolve. In the interests of narrowing the range of items under discussion, do you object to restoring those changes? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::Thanks for the reply. I will reciprocate soon, but want to just finish up with some edits incorporating info from the ''[[National Journal]]'' article by Mishak.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 04:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::: As stated above, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=689141723&oldid=689141591 #1] is ultimately sourced to an unofficial list created by the office of Rubio's political enemy (Crist) which apparently wasn't even mentioned by Crist's office until they started campaigning against each other. In addition, the source says the list linked spending items with lawmakers based on conversations Crist's staff had with legislative staffers and lawmakers. (You've got to be kidding me!) It's an xls file, which doesn't appear to even have been made publicly available. Also, it's contradicted by the official CIBR process which was referenced immediately before this in this article (and still exists in the article). Florida TaxWatch releases the official "turkey list" for spending in Florida. Rubio's spokesperson claimed that Crist's list was not supported by Florida TaxWatch. Finally, I can't find any other sources that reference this information. It's not reliable. On the other hand, personally I don't have a problem with restoring #4.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 04:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::As to #1, before responding, I'm curious whether [[User:Neutrality]] finds this explanation by [[User:CFredkin]] persuasive or not. In other words, if I can wiggle out of investigating this matter and forming an opinion about it. that's my preference. :-) As to #1 though #4, I'm curious whether [[User:Cwobeel]] ranks them the same way User:Neutrality does.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 05:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::: I find it a completely unpersuasive argument. The documents were kept year to year, by a budget office from 2000-08. The office appears to be part of the executive branch (much like the OMB is on the federal level), but the idea that Crist himself simply made up the numbers in 2010 is simply absurd. Bottom line: the ''Times''/''Herald'' found them enough to report on. The two newspapers are unquestionably reliable sources. The source deals with an important event in Rubio's political career. We have zero business not including it.

::::::::::: To the extent that the fact that this came from a budget office is significant, I would be fine with saying that this came "from the Crist administration's budget office." I think it's unnecessary to say, ''but I am offering it as a compromise so we can all move forward''.

::::::::::: I'd also note that much or all of the content is ''repeated in other independent sources'' (which I didn't, but I could've put in). For example, the Turnpike thing is also supported in [http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/look-who-won-turnpike-contract another Tampa Bay Times article]. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 05:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::: To be clear....The source provided is an article written by a reporter who appears to be associated with the Miami Herald. However, the article itself was published by the Tampa Bay Times. I've seen no evidence that an article was also published by the Miami Herald. Also, the blog post cited in the last post (and the [http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/06/crist-whacks-ru.html lengthier article] it links to) talks about Rubio pushing for language to allow split bidding for the contract for the project, which would potentially have allowed a firm run by a friend to bid for it. It says nothing regarding Rubio being involved with obtaining funding for the project itself.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 06:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Also, I don't agree that an xls file created by a budget office for what appears to be its internal use, and which they did not publish publicly is necessarily reliable.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 06:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Finally it would be great if you addressed the specific points I raised above regarding how the file was created and the fact that it was contradicted by other sources, instead of making unfounded claims. I never stated that the numbers were made up by Crist himself.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 06:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::: First - "The ''Tampa Bay Times'' and ''Miami Herald'' merged Tallahassee bureaus in 2008, creating a six-person team where assignments are divided evenly and each newspaper publishes work of the combined staff." See [http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/meet-the-timesherald-tallahassee-bureau/1277100 here]. So this was published in both newspapers and is properly credited to both (the ideal cite is probably: "''Tampa Bay Times''/''Miami Herald'' Tallahassee Bureau").

::::::::::::: Second - No, the report is not "contradicted by other sources." The state budget office and Florida TaxWatch have different lists, presumably because they have different criteria. It seems that the budget office's list was of all hometown projects, while the TaxWatch list is more narrow and lists projects they view as unwise ("turkeys"). That's not a contradiction, merely a different document. (You wrote above that "the official 'turkey list'" is maintained by TaxWatch - Not so. TaxWatch maintains a list, but it is not an "official list"; the group is an advocacy group, not a government agency).

::::::::::::: If you think the source has limitations, fine - as I've said, we can express ''the limitations stated in the source itself'' (i.e., that the list is generated from the budget office). But to say, "we, as Wikipedia, don't think this source is reliable, notwithstanding the fact that two respected newspapers relied upon it for a news analysis," - I don't think that is a fair way to look at it.

::::::::::::: (By the way, even if we were to play the role of newspaper editor in assessing reliability (which we should not): the fact that a document is internal would seem to ''enhance'' its reliability, no? If these documents were internal, then that implies that they were not cooked up for external election-season consumption down the line.) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: Please stop saying that this content was published by 2 newspapers until you provide 2 links to articles supporting that statement. The 2 newspapers may share staff in some cases, but only 1 newspaper appears to have published this article.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 07:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: Our role as encyclopedia editors absolutely includes assessing the reliability of sources. And this is a [[WP:BLP]], which means we need to hold the sourcing for content to the highest standards.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 07:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: The following factors argue strongly against the reliability of the source in this case:

:::::::::::::::# The source for this "unofficial" list is informal discussions between budget staff and legislative staff and legislators.

:::::::::::::::# This unofficial list is contradicted by the official list of budget requests (CIBR's).

:::::::::::::::# The unofficial list has never been published externally, but appears only to have even been mentioned and shown to a reporter offline during a campaign between Crist and Rubio. It implies that the staff are unwilling to stand behind it and have it be scrutinized. That doesn't enhance the reliability of the list. It detracts from it.

:::::::::::::::# The unofficial list is called an "unofficial" list in the article. Why would we publish information from an "unofficial" list in a BLP?[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 07:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: First: Both the ''Herald'' and the ''Times'' [http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/rubios-campaign-image-belies-history-of-250-million-in-pork-requests/1078548 both] [http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2010/03/marco-rubios-quarter-billion-dollars-of-earmarks.html published] the identical piece (as literally 30 seconds of research would reveal).

::::::::::::::: Second: There is '''''no question whatsoever''''' that the ''Herald'' and the ''Times'' are respected sources. All arguments to the contrary are strained at best. Also, reporters routinely report on non-public documents, including government documents, drafts, etc. and use information from [[confidential source]]s. That is absolutely typical, as a quick glance at any given day's ''Washington Post'' would reveal. Your approach seems would seemingly presume that reporters are credulous and don't do fact-checking. That is, happily, not the case. The whole point of journalism is that professional editors act as a filter.

::::::::::::::: If you want to submit to the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]], go ahead. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 07:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: You're absolutely right... in fact we should just rely on bots to create and update Wikipedia articles based on published newspaper content. No judgement required.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 07:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: The snide remark doesn't impress me. Nor does it further the conversation. I am done for the evening. Good night. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 08:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::: Whereas your snide remarks above have really elevated the tone of the discussion....[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 08:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: Life is too short for this. Let us find some actual way to break this impasse. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 23:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::: I agree. In the spirit of getting past this issue, I'd like to propose the following text:

<blockquote>A ''Tampa Bay Times''/''Miami Herald'' analysis of a budget list maintained by Crist's Office of Policy & Budget from 2000 to 2008 indicated that Rubio helped push about $250 million in hometown spending for projects, some of which was co-sponsored with other representatives. The list was compiled by the governor's staff during the budget process based on conversations with legislators and their staffs and was not published publicly.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 23:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)</blockquote>

My first impression is that the ''Times/Herald'' piece falls under the heading of "reliable source" and so their statements of fact are entitled to our respect. But I also think we ought to take into account other sources on the same subject, such as [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-05-23/news/TURKEYS23_1_florida-taxwatch-turkeys-budget-items this one in the Orlando Sentinel], and perhaps others. I want to make sure we're not talking about a situation like "Rubio voted to fund highways that he himself has driven on". We need to be clear about why this was or was not such a situation. Here's a quote from the Sentinel piece: "'I didn't push any of them,' Rubio said Tuesday, when told of Miami-Dade's lengthy list. 'I quite frankly am not familiar with most of them.' He also noted that many of the earmarks criticized by TaxWatch are for health and social programs, or as Rubio put it, 'the kind of thing that legislators would get attacked on if we didn't fund them.'" Do any of these reports contradict what Rubio was saying here? It's not clear to me. I want to work on this some more later today, so we get it right.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 08:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

: Generally speaking, I would be more comfortable using content based on information published publicly with stated critera by an independent organization, which I think would include [http://www.floridataxwatch.org/ResearchAreas/Turkeys/tabid/398/Page/2/Default.aspx TaxWatch]. However, my concern about the Orlando Sentinel article (& TaxWatch in general) is that, after looking at it more closely, TaxWatch doesn't actually link spending to legislators. It only links spending to counties that benefit from it. So we can use it to determine whether Rubio's county received funding, but not whether he was involved in securing the funding.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 20:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC) I believe this is indicated in the Orlando Sentinel article itself, as well as by documents [http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/2008TurkeysFinal.pdf published] by TaxWatch.

:Anythingyouwant: I would be OK with including the ''Times/Herald'' piece alongside the ''Orlando Sentinel'' (alongwide any limitations of the sources, as noted in the sources themselves). I generally think statistical/budget info that relies on government sources is preferable to reliance on third-party activist groups (such as TaxWatch), but I would not object to inclusion of both, if it would break the impasse. The whole thing, I think, can likely be dealt with in a few sentences. Do you have proposed language? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 23:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

== Seriously? ==

{{tq|During his time as Speaker of the Florida House, Rubio shared a residence with another Florida State Representative, David Rivera, which the two men co-owned in Tallahassee. The house later fell into foreclosure. This issue was raised in June 2010, during Rubio's run for the US Senate, but was considered resolved according to Rubio's spokesman}}

Doh. Of course his spokesman will consider that resolved, but omitting the commentary about that issue as reported in reliable sources is not acceptable. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 17:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:Personally I'm ok with removing the last sentence above and just including the bit about it later being sold.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 19:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

: That is not enough... The sentence does not give any context on why this is relevant to his bio, without the deleted material. This was the original:

{{talkquote|During his time as speaker of the Florida House, Rubio co-owned and shared a Tallahassee home with David Rivera, a fellow Republican Florida state representative and "old friend" of Rubio's.[42] (Rivera and Rubio, both "rising stars" in Tallahassee at the time, later briefly lived together in a rented home in Washington after they won seats in Congress.)[42] The home was purchased in March 2005 for $135,000; in 2010, during Rubio's run for the U.S. Senate, the property fell into foreclosure after five months of missed mortgage payments.[42][43] In June 2015, the troubled home was finally sold for $117,000, $8,000 less than the asking price and $18,000 less than the two men paid for ten years previously.[44][45]}}

- [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 19:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::There's now a POV tag atop the section on his tenure as state legislator. Could we please have a brief explanation here at the talk page precisely why the tag is there? Thanks.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 19:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: See section above. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::The so-called "original" version re. the foreclosed house is kind of weird, because the quoted material is not really "original" (e.g. it omits the Kurtz quote that was there for many days, while including new material that IMO gives the matter undue weight).[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 19:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::: I agree entirely with Cwobeel, above. The "considered it resolved" section is absurd. It manages, ridiculously, to be both obvious and vague. The improved version is far better, as I explain in the section above. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

==Reversion of garden variety edits==

I recently edited this article to incorporate an article in the ''[[National Journal]]'' about Rubio's career in Florida state politics.[http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/24397/what-kind-leader-is-marco-rubio-investigation] Cwobeel has undone some of those edits on what seem to me very unpersuasive grounds....

===Age===

Let's considered his first objection. His [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=689292084&oldid=689291918 edit summary says]: "rm editorializing. This is not People's magazine". And here is his edit: "<strike>Barely out of law school and 26 years old,</strike> Rubio was elected to a seat as City Commissioner for [[West Miami]] in 1998, before moving on to the Florida House of Representatives in early 2000." Nothing could be more typical in a biographical article than to describe the age of the subject at various events in his life. The cited source says: "Barely out of law school, the 26-year-old was seeking a seat on the city commission." Please focus on major disagreements, and let's cut each other some slack. Thanks.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 04:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

: {{tq|Barely out of law school and 26 years old,}} is editorializing. This is not an oped in a magazine. If you want to indicate that aspect without editorializing, use dates or number of years, such as "6 months after graduating" if it was six months, for example. Also, please avoid copyvios. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::Your idea of editorializing seems incredibly broad when it comes to GOP candidates. I note that you haven't suggested what the editorial message was; perhaps "Rubio was an incredible political prodigy" or "Those moronic voters in Florida would vote for an infant". I have no idea what you think the editorial message was, but I can only assume you think it was a pro-Rubio message since that's what you usually say. I intend to change the language to "Recently graduated from law school and 26 years old...."[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

::: What was the time that elapsed between his graduation and his election to the city commissioner? Don't you think it would be more useful for our readers to know that than using editorial devices such as "barely out of law school" or "recently graduated". Stick to facts and avoid rhetorical devices better suited to op eds. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 00:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

::: These are the facts: law degree in 1996, seat as City Commissioner in 1998. Stick to facts, please. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

===Employer===

Next we have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=689292333&oldid=689292084 this edit] by Cwobeel: “Later, in 2004, he switched private sector jobs, moving to Broad and Cassel <strike>which is one of Florida’s leading law and lobbying firms</strike>, though state law prevented him from engaging in lobbying or introducing legislation on behalf of clients.” Now the sentence gives no clue whether his employer was a brothel or an underwater salvage firm. The [http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/24397/what-kind-leader-is-marco-rubio-investigation cited source says], “In June 2004, Broad and Cassel, one of Florida’s top law and lobbying firms, hired him….” Yes, Cwobeel added a wikilink to [[Broad and Cassel]], but we are not supposed to make readers chase links. Do I have to quote the policy? Why can’t we say that the entity that hired him is a law and lobbying firm?[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

: "One of Florida’s top law and lobbying firms" is an unattributed opinion. Best to avoid these, and allow readers to visit the article and found out more if they want. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::Per [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking]], "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." The same principle applies here, and I intend to briefly describe his employer as what it was: a law and lobbying firm. I also don't think that this info is opinion. We need to steer clear of opinion as much as possible so we don't waste readers' time with stuff that is often wrong. I'm out and about right now, but hope to have further replies later. Cheer.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 18:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::: That is not a "highly technical term". You may use "Broad and Cassel, a Florida lobbying firm" if you want, and omit any superlatives or opinions. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 18:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::I will say "law and lobbying firm" which is the factual language that offended you to such an extent that you entirely struck it out of the Wikipedia article without even making any effort to rephrase or comply with [[WP:Preserve]].[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 00:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

::::: Easy, man. It is you that made the edit, not me. Take responsibility, fix it and move on. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::There were two edits: me writing, and then you deleting. I take full reponsibility for the former.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 00:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

===Triviality of his presidential candidacy===

Here is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=689293363&oldid=689292760 another of Cwobeel’s edits], where Rubio’s presidential candidacy is removed from the lead paragraph. This is contrary to current common practice (see [[Hillary Clinton]], [[Ben Carson]], [[Donald Trump]], [[Bernie Sanders]], [[John Kasich]], et cetera, et cetera). Putting this in the lead paragraph is also required by [[WP:OPENPARAGRAPH]], which says we should include “The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played”. And so the implication is now that Rubio’s presidential candidate is so trivial and insignificant as to be non-notable in the lead paragraph. Readers will interpret this as an insult by Wikipedia against Rubio,and quite reasonably so.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:This has nothing to do with trivializing anything; please AGF. The article's lede needs to respect chronology and not be slanted towards recent events. Most candidates articles include the statement about their candidacy at the end of the lede. See [[Carly Fiorina]], [[Rand Paul]], [[Chris Christie]], [[Lindsey Graham]], [[Ted Cruz]], [[George Pataki]] and others. Eight months for now, when many of these drop from the race, you would not have the mention of their candidacy in the lead sentence, would you? (See [[Rick Perry]] and [[Scott Walker]] as an example). See [[WP:RECENTISM]]. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

<s>Before I answer your questions,</s> Please help me understand why is that you consider your 50 or so consecutive edits in which you made substantial changes to be reasonable, while my three edits are not. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 14:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:::This whole section is directed to helping you understand that.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: So you make 50+ edits and get so [[WP:OWN|mad]] about a few corrections to make this entire thread. Oh boy. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 00:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::Well, if I agree with everything you say, then you will apparently like me better, but I don't care if you like me.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

===Comment in support of Anythingyouwant's observations here===

'''Strongly agree''' with [[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]]'s observations and points here, and it would appear that it might be advisable for [[User:Cwobeel|Cwobeel]] to '''take a brief respite''' from editing Wikipedia political articles. Cwobeel generally seems to contribute only minimal substantive material, mostly making very numerous edits that are reversions of others' good faith efforts and contributions, or to sanitize articles with what appears an obvious and noticeable bias, and frequently with what most would consider 'snarky' edit summaries (and not infrequently reverting Cwobeel's own edits, curiously enough --- I guess haste makes waste.) Cwobeel might also do well to revisit [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] policies, and study them again very carefully, as many of Cwobeel's edits and undo's look very much like, to even the most casual observer, heavily biased in favor of one particular candidate in the [[2016 presidential election]]. Even a cursory review of Cwobeel's contributions history bears that out. <small>( {{ping|Anythingyouwant}}cc )</small> --- [[User:Professor JR|Professor JR]] ([[User talk:Professor JR|talk]]) 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

: I make substantial contributions to many articles, check my userpage. This is Wikipedia, and we arrive at compromises by collaboratively editing articles. If you don't like that there is always [[Conservapedia]]. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 14:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

: Actually, you would be very surprised if you knew who is my favorite candidate. But in any case, we all have our biases and I could say the same about you. It is all OK, though. That is the Wikipedia way. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

: Professor JR: that's a meritless, totally unfounded attack on Cwobeel, who is very good content contributor to this project. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 22:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

== Unattributted opinion ==

{{yo|Anythingyouwant }} What you are doing here again, is taking Michael Mishak's opinions and stating them as a facts. Not acceptable. All these are unattributed opinion stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. See [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]]. I had tagged these with {{tl|whom}}, but Professor JR has decided to revert these tags, for whatever reason and without addressing the issue.

* {{talkquote|That position had typically required a lot of arm-twisting, but Rubio took a different approach that relied more on persuading legislators and less on coercing them.}}.

* {{talkquote|Rubio also gained an extra advantage in that regard, because he was sworn in early due to the special election, and he would take advantage of these opportunities to join the GOP leadership.}} .

*{{talkquote|Yet, Rubio's style was very different from Bush's. Where Bush was a very assertive manager of affairs in Tallahassee, Rubio's style was to delegate certain powers, relinquish others, and invite former political rivals into his inner circle.}}.

- [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the last example, your edit is a paraphrase of an opinion in Mishak's article, which says {{tq|Jeb Bush—who left of­fice in Janu­ary 2007, as Ru­bio was be­gin­ning his speak­er­ship—had taken a dom­in­eer­ing ap­proach to man­aging af­fairs in Tal­l­a­hassee. Ru­bio’s style of lead­ing turned out to be quite dif­fer­ent. In a sur­pris­ing de­par­ture from House pro­tocol, he gran­ted re­quests by Gel­ber (the Demo­crat­ic lead­er) to make his own ap­point­ments to com­mit­tees as well as to con­trol his caucus’s of­fices and park­ing spaces—the cudgels of le­gis­lat­ive power. }} Paraphrasing is a great device instead of using quotes, but when you paraphrase an opinion, you still ''have'' to attribute the opinion. Otherwise it reads as this was a fact, and in Wikipedia's voice to boot. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::Cwobeel says that the three quoted statements in the Wikipedia article are unattributed opinion stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. But Cwobeel, in all three of those instances you have conveniently omitted footnote "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio#cite_note-Mishak-16 16]" which should appear at the end of every one of those three excerpts. Footnote 16 is designated as a news report, not an opinion piece, and the news report is amply supported by many examples that the reporter offers to prove each one of those three statements. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnFnWWAnlkw Here is a helpful video] that offers an explanation of how facts differ from opinions, the main difference being that opinion is not proven. Therefore, if you would like to argue that this news report fails to prove any of the three statements above, then you might have a point, but you haven’t even tried to do that with regard to the first two examples you gave. With regard to the last example you gave, my edit is not merely a paraphrase of the material you suggest. It is also supported by a great deal of other material in the cited source; would you like me to quote it all here?[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 00:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

::: The text in its current state it is not acceptable. You are using the opinions of Michael Mishak without even a single attribution and in Wikipedia's voice. Please take a minute to review [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]] - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 00:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)