Talk:Tom Suozzi

Untitled

Sept 6 birthday? Is it really? Chivista 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI unabashed

that s/b better than naked. Bona Fides 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI debate win

I gave Suozzi in the win in this article because it doesn't matter. Bona Fides 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I gave Suozzi the win in the Suozzi article because Suozzi claimed victory. The Albany Times Union said that by appearing on the same plaftorm Suozzi wins. Otter news pundits (incl. Baruch Prof Munzio) said that by not making any gaffes, Spitzer won. Therefore both guys won. This is possible in politics, but not in baseball. Bona Fides

Should "Thomas Suozzi" be just "Tom Suozzi"? Also, I am going to change the picture on the front page to this one. Unless there are objections, I will change it. --Blue387 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a back and forth editing rally going on

Someone keeps deleting properly cited sections of Thomas Suozzi's page and they keep having to be re-added. Please stop deleting sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflorio12 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the sections and semi-protected the article for three days. — ξ^xplicit 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You missed one paragraph. I've restored it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflorio12 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the source does not support that staement. It specifically states that Thomas Suozzi is no longer named in the suit. He may be mentioned in the trial, but, if he is not a party to the suit he can't really be at the center of it. If it is actually of importance it needs to be reworded to accurately reflect the facts not the wishful thinking of the reporter. ````

sorry about messing up my signature in the above comment. However, it has been a little more than 24 hours and there has been no attempt by regular contributors here to correct the para to reflect what is actually reported at the sourece. Therefore i will make an attempt to do so. DSRH |talk 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Catholic

Suozzi may be a Democrat with his demand for abortion on demand, but he's not a Catholic. Catholics oppose abortion. A cat may have kittens in the oven but that doesn't make them biscuits! Change it to an agnostic Democrat by Monday or I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.9.224 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I enjoy menacing ultimatums as much as the next guy, but you should really read WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY before editing. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

apparent SPA activity

I note that there have been a lot of recent contributions from this single-purpose account, and that they are very promotional in tone. Given the propensity for over-capitalization, they are likely written by someone who works in government where that's a common shortcoming.--~TPW 02:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, yeah. I went ahead and rolled the article back to its April 2020 version because there had been so much COI editing happening. Marquardtika (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

George Santos

In the general election, he defeated Republican nominee George Santos, a finance executive, by over 12 points.

The two sources don't support that Santos claimed to be a finance executive, and I haven't found any other sources that do. With recent developments, I think this could use a rewrite, but I'm not sure how to restate it. -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "a finance executive" from the prose. Maybe once the sources are clearer a different phrase can be added in. ~TPW 14:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did he not do oppo research on Devolder Santos?

Why did he not do oppo research on Devolder Santos? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure he's asking himself the same question. Marquardtika (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

He did win by 12 points so probably not losing much sleep over it. Thmymerc (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved – bradv 16:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Thomas Suozzi → Tom Suozzi – WP:COMMONNAME. About 174 sources in Google News use "Thomas Suozzi", while about 300 use "Tom Suozzi". [1][2] estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support: per WP:COMMONNAME. Marquardtika (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom Thmymerc (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support I'm surprised that this hasn't come up before. I've exclusively heard him referred to as Tom over Thomas. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom GardenCosmos (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page protection

In the last few hours I saw a request at WP:RFPP for this page and after my reading applied semi-protection for one week. Since then an ip contributor has disagreed with my choice (on my talk) and has asked me to reconsider. I think such things should best be discussed on the article talk page. I invite interested parties to disagree (or agree) with my choice to semi-protect this page for a week. Please provide rationales and sources. BusterD (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. An editor asserted that "less than helpful" edits had been made. You then protected the page for "persistent vandalism." But I don't see any record of the sort in article history. I therefore asked you to reconsider. See here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Suozzi&diff=prev&oldid=1190785588 It appears that an established editor is simply seeking to game the system. Here are the edits the just deleted, and he seems to have - at best - an annoyance about IP appropriate edits being added. So the easiest thing for him is to dupe you into protecting the article, for non-existent "vandalism." Look at what he just deleted, relevant and RS-supported. Not vandalism at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Suozzi&diff=1190785173&oldid=1190783485 Protection is not meant to be a tool for gaming the system, I would submit.

Vandalism would be reason to protect a page. Baseless IDONTLIKEIT assertions of "less than helpful" edits are not reason to protect a page. And though there was a request by an IDONTLIKEIT editor to protect the page - even the editor did not assert vandalism. Because .. there is none.

As our policy states, pages "are protected when a specific damaging event has been identified ... Otherwise, Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors.

I would urge you to reconsider, as I have on your talk page. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Please remember that one of our guidelines is assume good faith and avoid accusations such as duping and gaming the system. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

A less-than-helpful IP edit in question can be found here, where a citation title was needlessly disrupted. It may have been a simple mistake, but it could've plausibly been vandalism as well.

As for the edits I made to the intro, they were intended to keep it as succinct as possible. Percentages and vote shares can be expounded on in their appropriate sections (although on second glance, the mention of being unseated by Ed Mangano could certainly be added back in - I'm happy to do that!). Again, the typo of "theelections" could've been a simple mistake, but seemed suspicious.

Those two errors combined from different IP accounts made me put in the request. Wasn't really trying to game anything though. Woko Sapien (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Restored mention of Ed Mangano to the intro. Hope this helps cool things down. Woko Sapien (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I, at least, edit as an IP with an internet provider that -- as is certainly not uncommon -- rotates my IP address periodically. Not at my request. And it is a major internet provider. You can presume this happens with many IPs.

The typo is not vandalism. Obviously. If it were, we would block a large swath of editors. And your second asserted "error" -- percentages and vote shares are not vandalism. Your point is not wp-based - it's an IDONTLIKEIT subjective view. There was no proper rationale for asking for page protection. The two "errors" you point to .. the second of which is not even an error .. are obviously not vandalism.

As to AGF, I don't presume that you are deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when your actions are harmful. I do believe that most people try to help the project, not hurt it. I did of course try as best I could to explain and resolve the problem, leaving a note on your talkpage. I also sought to express my doubts about the conduct here by substanting such doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for my concerns. Which is precisely what our AGF policy calls for. The guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary, or prohibit discussion and criticism, as even editors who try to improve Wikipedia may not have the information or skills necessary to succeed in their good-faith goals. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It may have been more constructive to have mentioned my concerns on your talk page first, which I would've normally done. But IP talk pages can be tricky at times when you're trying to have a serious conversation, although I realize IP editors are human too. Woko Sapien (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Where an IP is not static, the editor may not see continued conversation. But jumping to request page protection - for a simple typo, and a subjective view as to what belongs in a lede - does not fall within the rationale for page protection. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair, but as far as keeping the intro succinct and not a rehash of electoral statistics, I don't really view that as subjective, per WP:LEAD. Woko Sapien (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the semi-protection previously applied. I wrongly used the preset for vandalism when so applying. That was lazy for a Wikipedia sysop, and pejorative towards the ip contributors in this case. I have no excuses; I acted wrongly; I will try harder to read farther. I urge those here to please continue to discuss word choices which will improve the page, as I am confident each editor can do. BusterD (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Buster -thanks. Yours is a thankless job. We all make mistakes (and I apparently make a typo now and then). Thanks for your reconsideration, and all the good work you do. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

How so? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the MOS: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." To have an intro that dives into the percentages of every election the subject participated in defeats this purpose (unless of course the numbers were exceptionally notable). To my knowledge, Suozzi's electoral history is fairly mundane in the that regard.

Take for instance Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, her lead section mentions her upset victory over Joe Crowley, but not the percentages of her vote share because that's not really what's notable about it. Ned Lamont, which I'm a major editor to, is another good example. The intro would become borderline unreadable if it included the win-loss percentage of every election mentioned there.

Readers who are curious about Suozzi's vote shares can consult his electoral history section. It doesn't look like his NY gubernatorial primary campaigns are included there, but they certainly could be. Hell, if it's any consolation I'll even add them in later myself. Woko Sapien (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Before addressing the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - how is that you don't view the phrases "briefly" and "most important" as being manifestly subjective? (And yes - thanks - your proposed addition would be helpful.) --2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

They seem reasonably straightforward to me: say the most essential points in the fewest words possible. As a rule of thumb, anything that gets added to the lead section should be asked, "Does this add such crucial context that the average reader would have significantly less understanding of the subject without it?" The reason we don't typically include all the win-loss percentages in lead sections is that they don't fundamentally expand the average reader's knowledge.

If you wrote that Bob Blow represented the 69th district from to 2002 to 2006, I'll naturally assume it's because he won the most votes during his tenure. As I mentioned above, if I were curious what his vote share was during that time, I could look further into his electoral history section. But for a cursory understanding, it simply isn't necessary.

By the way, this isn't the first time I've trimmed some fat off of Suozzi's lead section. As you can see here, I've also removed lines about the district's geography and his 2006 gubernatorial campaign platform. Believe it or not, I didn't do it because I'm a mean person. I did it because neither fact fundamentally expanded the average reader's knowledge on this topic. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• That does not make sense to me. The phrases "briefly" and "most important" are manifestly subjective. What is brief to one person may not be what is brief to another. What is most important to one person may not be what is most important to another. This is the very essence of something being subjective. Objective, by contrast, is when we say "no more than four paras in the lede." I think you are clearly wrong here, in your understanding of what the term subjective means. And as I said, that's just my first point. But I thought I would address the issues here one by one. This one I think is clear. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6452:6250:50CE:E0D7 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Woko Sapien (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for updating my edit on Suozzi! IEditPolitics (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

And your correction "2023" is valid, too. I fell for the article from the Independent that stated: "Should Mr Suozzi regain the seat he vacated in 2021, ..."--Nomirto (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)