Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Arizona Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance). U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s).

I live in this district and am no fan of J.D. Hayworth. J.D. Hayworth has not yet conceeded the election and so any statement in Wikipedia that he has been elected to office is premature at best and untrue at worst. Thane Eichenauer 14:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell over the bully link seems to have suffered from linkrot on AZCentral.com, it directs to what amounts to a 404 style page. I haven't been able to find the original article. I don't feel comfortable just killing it. Perhaps someone can take up the mantle and find the proper entry and fix it? I have attempted to use AZCentral's own search and Google, no dice.   Hadaly (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a sentence relating the difference in finances between Schweikert and Mitchell. The information I found was vastly different numbers. However on reflection, I didn't think the raw numbers provided any substantive context for the election. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iumitchell02 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting the talking points against Mitchell from the National Republican Trust and a site called "Harrymitchellwatch." While I agree voting record is important, certainly the selection of topics and characterizations should not come from a partisan source. Any thoughts on how to improve the article? --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to write up a referenced and balanced paragraph on Mitchell's voting record. I'd welcome improvements, of course, or any further thoughts. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to the site are absolutely biased towards Mitchell and promote popular votes he made while concealing his votes for Healthcare and the original stimulus package which are obviously unpopular. You must include both. I am not a campaign worker and the only things I changed form David Schweikert's profile were false personal attacks which are being severely misrepresented. I am sure if I put anything close to what was on his page on Mitchell's it would get deleted immediately. Also, "Blue dog" and "centrist" are most certainly his talking points considering he votes with his party, which by all accounts has pushed a very liberal agenda, 81% of the time. Include all the facts and please stop erasing my points simply to insert similar ones. I will attempt to edit again and leave all the bullshit off. --iumitchell02 —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the commentary, I removed your second reference to "Obamacare," since his vote on the bill was already mentioned (I would think "Obamacare" is a partisan term). I amnot sure which stimulus bill you were meaning to reference, but the reference provided says he opposed it in 2009. Describing someone as "very liberal" or "centrist" is a judgement call, of course, so I tried to find a reasonably neutral source. I left in your percent voting with democratic party, but I am not sure quite what it means. There are many bills which are completely non-controversial--naming post offices, recognizing the achievements of Mrs. Johnson's second grade class in science olympiad, etc.-- which pass virtually unanimously. It is not clear if the stat refers just to meaningful legislation, or inlcudes all the fluff. If not, which bills are included? How are the partisan lines determined? I'm always worried about stats without context. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Mitchell. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628133007/http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Harry_Mitchell to http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Harry_Mitchell
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006163330/http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/10/house-democrats.php to http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/10/house-democrats.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]