Talk:Mike Garcia (politician)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Mike Garcia (politician). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Can we add that he won yet?
Based on the results that have come in so far (about 75% in) Mike Garcia is clearly ahead. Should he be added as the winner yet? Thanoscar21 (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- NBC[1] reports that the Democratic Party candidate has conceded, but also notes that there are many votes which were mailed in. NYT[2] reports the same, but notes that the results have not been made official yet so I don't know if we should wait a while or take what the newspapers say... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 22:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Republican Mike Garcia leading in House special election in California, Smith concedes". NBC News.
- ^ Medina, Jennifer (13 May 2020). "Republican Wins House Seat in California Special Election". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
- Well, on the other page (25th special election), it already states he won. Additionally, if Smith conceded, Garcia has likely won. It's already been added to this page. I guess that it's done already. Thanoscar21 (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Upset Section
CharlesShirley What is it about this section that offends you so much? KidAd (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't "offend" me. It is merely unimportant and not notable. It is unnecessary and you have not made a case for its inclusion. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley I suspect that you are removing notable information to prove a point for the sole reason that I removed endorsement information. Is that the case? If so, this is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. KidAd (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you making assumptions about my personal motives. Can't you simply focus on the article and provide reasons on why you want to put the information in the article? You need to focus on the article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley I suspect that you are removing notable information to prove a point for the sole reason that I removed endorsement information. Is that the case? If so, this is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. KidAd (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't "offend" me. It is merely unimportant and not notable. It is unnecessary and you have not made a case for its inclusion. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Moving page & 2020 regular
Garcia is up by less than 500 votes, and I moved the page to this because I wanted to be specific about which state he came from. That needed to be clear to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernspeed (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Editor's insistence on retaining a campaign sign
(Copying this following from my unanswered post to this editor's Talk page.) Actually, before I reverted the Mike Garcia article I did look at the Christy Smith article and the Trump article. No campaign signs (in fact the Trump article has a photo of a building under construction, which seemed odd). Then I went to your page and was curious to see what the "objects thrown" article was about and if the Bush "shoeing" was included. I corrected that entry. I think I'm right. Rather than edit war over this, which seems pointless, I suggest you self-revert and take it to the Garcia Talk page. I had updated that page earlier by deleting the text about the interim count, which seemed pointless, given that there was a certified count, and noticed the campaign sign which I deleted. The sign is by definition "advertising." 07:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jon698 Making caustic remarks in a subject line is not "taking it to a Talk page." You're obviously Wikistalking me. I really don't understand this. You know how Wikipedia operates as evidenced by your extensive and really solid work on the Dick Bond article that I created, that you added after his recent death. The Garcia campaign sign occupied a position of prominence, near its top. The Eric Swalwell campaign logo led to his website and clicking on that link led to a warning to anyone who might be accessing the site. The John Delaney article similarly is advertising, is not from an RSS, and leads to his Instagram page. His presidential campaign had to be one of the briefer on record as he dropped out in January 2020, and, if memory serves, he never reached 1% in the polls. I can't imagine how an image of his or any politician's campaign sign(s) improve(s) the article. How would your position not support the inclusion of hundreds of different signs from a major campaign to the candidate's article? Please take our differences of opinion to Talk. I've done so but you haven't. Lastly, when does an edit somehow achieve legitimacy by being "long term?" Garcia's article is fairly recent. That reasoning seems quite subjective. Activist (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Activist: While the Donald Trump page might not have his campaign logo, which it should, Hillary Clinton's page shows off her 2016 campaign logo in the Political positions section. Other pages show the campaign logos as well such as Elizabeth Warren (Senate), Cory Booker (Senate and presidential), Doug Jones (Senate), Dan Sullivan (Senate), Kamala Harris (Senate and presidential), Michael Bennet (presidential), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (House), Josh Hawley (Senate), Maggie Hassan (Governor), Kirsten Gillibrand (presidential), George W. Romney (presidential), and Mitt Romney (Senate, governor, his father's presidential, and his mother's Senate), Tim Kaine (Clinton's presidential logo with him as vp) to just name a few. Political campaign logos are important to politics and elections and thus should be included in campaign sections of articles. Jon698 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)