Talk:Maria Sachs

COI Discussion

User:NatashaValentina1 is apparently the daughter of Maria Sachs. She states this on her talk page. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that she appeared on the #en-wikipedia-help ^connect IRC channel earlier asking for help to remove the banner. I wasn't sure how but I said I would check references and the neutrality of the article. I'll update here with my edits. Kind regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 20:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have changed numerous pieces of wording and tagged the article with {{citation style}}. Captain n00dle\^Talk 20:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• I have also updated the references to use templates with the help of the makeref tool. I haven't updated the references to use consistent style yet. Captain n00dle\^Talk 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the article is very much under the influence of several editors that have a conflict of interest with the subject matter: User:Eag227 (Contribs) even mentions "search engine optimisation" in one of his edit summaries. If I had to be a detective User:Senate30 is probably Maria Sachs herself (or someone close to her) given her contributions and that Maria Sachs is actually State Senate for Florida's 30th District.

I have also noticed that User:Eag227 has entered into an edit war; see these edits in order: [1] [2] [3] [4] (the alt text has been restored currently [5]).

Therefore, I propose that the COI tag at the top of the article should not be removed until the article goes through a substantial review and is deemed Neutral by a majority of Wikipedia editors that do not have a COI. I will also suggest that this article becomes semi-protected so that only experienced editors can edit. Kind regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 22:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I just declined the semi-protection request. First, the last edit made by any of those people was 3 months ago, so semi-protection is not currently justified. Second, semi-protection probably wouldn't work anyway, because all of them are either autoconfirmed or very close to being confirmed, so they'd be able to edit through the protection very quickly anyway. The tag may well be justified, so feel free to add it; of course, ideally, someone neutral will edit the article sufficiently that it's no longer needed. If problems flair up again, feel free to ask me directly on my talk page or bring this back to WP:RFPP or to WP:COIN. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input, I will help out with this article when I can. Captain n00dle\^Talk 18:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

/* COI Discussion */ Hello- I need some help on this article. It's been now since September 2011, I belive, that we've had a giant banner across the article stating the neutrality is called into question. Could you please advise how this article can be re-reviewed, perhaps information should be withdrawn if its not verifiable- so that the banner issue is addressed and the article can return to normal again? Thank you for your guidance on this! . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1040:404:CABC:C8FF:FEDC:1122 (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

am trying to figure out how to address any issues with the page so the banner at the top- which has been on there almost a year- can be resolved. thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambola1242 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not written from a neutral point of view, plus the author claims to be the subject's daughter, creating a conflict of interest. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The wiki page here has a COI banner on the top for almost a year and I'm not sure how to best resolve any COI dispute so we can remove the banner. I have been trying to research how best to rectify any outstanding issues with the profile but would also call upon any senior editor to review the page and remove anything that could be construed as COI so that the page can be posted with a normal status again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambola1242 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 July 2012

That is not actually how Wikipedia works. We don't have "senior" editors, and administrators are no more able to deal with this sort of problem than any other editors. However, I have removed all the content which looks to me as though it might be considered promotional or non-neutral, and the conflict of interest tag. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing partisan, non essential content added by user User:Sunshine Disinfects during the 2012 political campaign for WP:AVOID| for the use of "claims" as well as [[:WP:WELLKNOWN| for not referencing additional sources. Bambola1242 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Bambola1242 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations vs. NPOV

I've removed some attack content which was written in a shamelessly partisan way, and sourced to such non-reliable sources as a business Political action committee's website. If there are substantive accusations out there, then they should be dispassionately reported upon, using independent, non-partisan reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The information was also reported in the Palm Beach Post on October 18, 2012 . I am reposting with the correct independent, non-partisan citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine Disinfects (talk • contribs) — Sunshine Disinfects (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I modified your text to reflect what the sources actually say, Sunshine. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then you shouldn't mind the direct quote from the paper I am about to post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine Disinfects (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted since you used a primary source to convey an idea. What do others think? --Malerooster (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Just want to state agreement with Orangemike that the original additions by Sunshine Disinfects were far outside our guidelines for biographies. Sunshine Disinfects, the editors of Wikipedia are trying to build a high-quality, professional-caliber encyclopedia. The welcome message posted on your talk page gives some valuable links discussing what this means. In particular, you should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view carefully. Being a successful editor requires knowing about (and avoiding) concepts like undue weight. We also have standards for what constitute reliable sources. Primary sources must be used with great care. Due to undue weight and primary source concerns, I also concur with Malerooster on his removal of your newer additions. Lastly, because of neutrality, we have a very strict policy on conflict of interest. If this topic is, in any way, a conflict of interest for you, you should be very careful when editing, if not abstaining totally from editing this article. That you have only editing related to this and with such prejudice raises my eyebrow. Do you have a COI here? Jason Quinn (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The candidate has been in office for six years, and only this week, as the Republican party has posted an ethics violations as the newspaper article cited states. This is an allegation done by the opposing party (the GOP) to obfuscate their record of their own candidate who also has had ethic violations charged against her in previous years (but does not have this posted on her wikipedia page). A public records request to the State has failed to produce any documentation that would substantiate the politically-motivated claim. This type of 'ethics allegations' cropping up these past two weeks has also occurred in multiple other state senate races throughout the state of Florida- all directed toward one party. For this reason, even the publishing of this "ethics violation charge" is politically motivated and should be removed. Bambola1242 (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)User:Bambola1242

I would agree if the documents were false. What is the problem with providing links to the actual official documents included in the allegation (which proves the violation) and letting the readers decide? I understand you want to scrub facts that make your candidate look bad, but just because you don't like bad things about your candidate, doesn't mean it's not true. More information of criminal activity is coming out daily. After the election, it will all back back. Stay tuned...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine Disinfects (talk • contribs) — Sunshine Disinfects (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why was her religion removed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine Disinfects (talk • contribs) — Sunshine Disinfects (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References