Jump to content

Talk:Michael San Nicolas

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

Article needs lots of link work

[edit]

Any fellow Guam editors want to help! Sprinkler21 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael San Nicolas. 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) 03:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael San Nicolas. 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) 10:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content is not neutral

[edit]

@Socialmacro:, I get the impression that you're a fan of San Nicolas, and that's great. But your approach to this page makes a mockery of Wikipedia policy, principally WP:NPOV and WP:TOOLONG. All of your contributions are just lists of his accomplishments, which also runs afoul of WP:NOTPROMOTION. My approach has been to comment out all of these additions and attempting to reincorporate what content is relevant in a neutral manner, and you've undone this three times, at minimum. This is not how Wikipedia works. You haven't even attempted to discuss anything, you just undo the work, and that is not acceptable. So let's discuss. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

[edit]

I have restored sourced content to the article, deleted by a user I previously reverted for major deletions, some unexplained. Please discuss here why you think this sourced material should be removed, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see you are brand new to Wikipedia; welcome, but please sign your posts, thanks. I have looked at the section, and the four sources. All the sources appear reliable, and quite relevant to Michael San Nicholas' career. He is talking about serious financial issues that his Guam constituents are impacted by, namely mortgages and interest rates. He appears, in the sources, to be taken quite seriously. How exactly are you defining "not noteworthy?" Do sources you can provide state these to be trivial acts? Also, for a first-time editor, you seem surprisingly familiar with Wikipedia policies. Have you edited previously, under a different name? Jusdafax (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • San Nicolas brought up an issue at a hearing. How is that noteworthy? Has he proposed policy on the issue? No. Just raising issues in a hearing is not noteworthy. I can look up basic articles on wikipedia. Jneds (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we disagree and will await other editors to weigh in here. As I see it, that carefully sourced information, reasonably encyclopedic, adds to reader understanding of Mr. San Nicolas, in terms of notable talking points. Again, have you previously edited Wikipedia? And what about your other massive cuts that were reverted? You had deleted major parts of the article. Jusdafax (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you are now calling me unethical, while refusing to engage on the issues I've raised. I'm starting to think we will have to bring in other eyes here. Jusdafax (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On consideration, I have asked for a review at the WP:BLP Noticeboard, and have added a template to this Talk page to that effect. Feel free to reply to my concerns there. I suggest you start by striking your personal attack. Jusdafax (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to ratchet down the unnecessary animosity, I will grant that you most likely removed that content accidentally, in an overzealous attempt to "undo" my removal of what you consider worthy content. Fine. It is all fine. I will acquiesce to your reversions, but the idea that a house ethics investigation, properly cited, does not deserve to be in this article is ludicrous. Now can you see the value in adding that detail? Is it not both noteworthy and accurate, according to many independent, highly credible media sources? I will not say that removing that content is not unethical, if you did so intentionally. I believe you did not remove it intentionally, but were overzealous. Jneds (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You added that investigation material in the middle of a large number of unexplained deletions. Obviously it belongs in the article, with the citations provided. Walking back your comment on my being "unethical" is a start. However, I believe your mass deletions, which you seemingly refuse to address with the exception of the one section above that I find dubious, require explaination if you want to keep editing this article in good faith. This is the only article you have ever edited on Wikipedia, supposedly. You refuse to address my questions on that as well. So be it. Jusdafax (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems that we agree that you made a mistake on removing that. In that case, it is clear that you were not being unethical, but did have an oversight. We all have issues like that. Now, you seem to err on the side that any public action or statement by a public figure is noteworthy. My position is that the "mass deletion" material in question is insubstantial as public actions or statements. You seem to disagree and I am open to the area of disagreement being decided in your favor. That is why I am deferring to your judgment on whether deleting the material is detrimental to the article. You believe it is, I believe it isn't. I am stepping back from those and considering it arguable that those statements and actions are noteworthy (particularly in a timescale past the news cycle). I think my understanding position with regard to the reversal of the deletions shows that I am making my edits in good faith based on my own view of what is noteworthy. If you want to go through each one exhaustively, I might be able to present a case. As a new contributor/editor, I am trying to do the best I can and to learn from my own perhaps rash judgments as to the noteworthiness of the content in question. Jneds (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael San Nicolas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Christine (talk · contribs) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. I know this has been languishing in the queue for a long time, but please be patient with me. This is a long, complicated article, about a subject I know little about, so it may take me a while to complete. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Your prose is a list of facts and trivia about San Nicolas. Part of the reason it comes across this way is that your paragraphs are too short; see WP:PARAGRAPH. Your overall prose is weak; it should flow better and include transitions between ideas.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Please see MOS:HEADCAPS for the MOS guidelines for titles of sections, which states that WP uses sentence case. Your sections also tend to be too short. For example, the "Issues" section doesn't need to be broken up into so many subsections.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    The format of the sources are inconsistent and incomplete. For example, some have accessdates, while others do not. I suggest that you use templates to ensure that you include all the required source information.
    C. It contains no original research:
    There seems to be a problem with utilization of sources. For example, there's nothing in ref3 about the political positions of his grandfather and great-grandfather, and that Quitugua was his maternal grandfather. That same source only mentions that San Nicholas graduated from Southern High School. You don't have a source for the information about his marriage. Your sources need to support your statements clearly; the reports you cite (refs 8 and 9) only list the number of votes he received, and not that he "served three consecutive terms in the Guam Legislature". This is a problem throughout the article, so I won't cite any more examples. I suggest that you go through the content and make sure that the sources explicitly support your statements.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I'm not sure about this, since I don't know much about the topic. However, I'd suspect that there are more sources about San Nicolas' House ethics investigation. Perhaps more research needs to be done, although if you assure me that there isn't, I'll take your word for it. Good luck.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Benefit of the doubt again.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    There was some contention just this month (Feb. 2020) on the talk page about the removal of content in the "Financial services" section, although it's seemed to be resolved. There has been some discussion about if this article is promotional. There was an edit war back in 2018, which was also resolved in a productive way.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    There is just one image, in the infobox.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    I wonder if there are more free images out there, since San Nicolas is a politician and there might be usable images of him on government websites. However, if you assure me that there are not, I'll assume good faith and take your word for it.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The current version of this article, without addressing the above, are enough to fail this article for GA. There are systematic issues that need to be resolved before it can pass to GA. I thought that it would take much longer to review, but since there are consistent issues with references, prose, and format, this review is more general. I didn't include many specific things for you to improve because so it needs so much work throughout the article. I usually give folks 7 days to work on issues, but for this article, I'm giving you 14 days (until 3/14/2020) to improve it.

No movement has been done in this GAN, so I'll have to, with regret, fail it. Please let me know if you choose to improve it in the future, and I'll assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_San_Nicolas&oldid=1255959214"