Talk:Mike Martinez

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment

It seems clear someone came in and rewrote the entire page to serve the needs of the Mike Martinez campaign. They completely removed entire sections that were sourced about the emailgate scandal, the election code violation, and so forth. You can't just go in and remove an entire page because it doesn't keep with how your campaign wants to portray itself. TexianPolitico (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the defeat, the campaign added personal oppinons about the candidate, they have been taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.85.145 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More censoring

There was another wholesale deletion of anything on this page that the Martinez campaign may not like. The editor that made the deletion seems to have no other history or profile on Wikipedia. This is not the proper way to deal with a page and any issues. As the May 12th election draws closer I expect we will see more of this sort of thing. TexianPolitico (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

There has been a continuing content dispute, with a couple of editors adding sourced material, while another editor has repeatedly removed this content. As there has not been much response on the talk page to this point, I will take this to RFC. Safiel (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute centers around sourced material that is negative in nature. A couple of parties have added this content, while one party has repeatedly removed this content. Safiel (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFC Comment: I don't see any real discussion on the talkpage, so maybe this is in fact an edit war rather than a legitimate content dispute? If this is the case, then counceling the editor involved and, should that fail, escalating to e.g. the Edit warring noticeboard could be a way forward. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Admittedly, I am not sure if an RFC was the right way of handling this. The page in question is of an obscure politician and the likely hood of much normal talk page discussion here is low. I will let this RFC go for a few days and see what happens, as well as keeping an eye on the edit history of the article. Safiel (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to restore the censored edits made by someone named Jrut112. All of this material is sourced and this person just comes in and deletes the entire section. They don't edit any other pages either. Very odd. How can we block them? Thanks. TexianPolitico (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may be an issue regarding WP:WEIGHT here. The negative material takes up quite a bit of space. Can it be condensed without being minimized? --Floorsheim (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references were a mess so I've corrected them, completed them, and used list-defined organization to make copyediting easier. I've also taken a few tentative pokes at formatting and word choices but more attention is needed, especially in the over-long "Controversy" section. This section is given undue weight, especially in the absence of basic biographical information. The whole "election code violation" paragraph can be boiled down to "While voting, Martinez snapped a photo of his ballot and posted it to Facebook, an apparent violation of state election law. Martinez removed the photo and apologized after being informed of the violation." but I'll leave the exact editing to any interested editor. - Dravecky (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the disruptive editor gone, I will close this RFC. Safiel (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help

I need help with this page. Some user named Jrut112 just keeps coming in her and deleting entire sections of the page. This is beyond the three-delete rule now. TexianPolitico (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calm reaction is the best course. The "controversy" section is overly detailed and gives undue weight to these incidents. Boiling them down to a couple of more on-point paragraphs will improve the article and reduce the temptation for other editor(s) to remove the text. Remember, you don't "own" this article so other people changing the prose is not necessarily vandalism. - Dravecky (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about that. Boiling it down or refining it is fine. What I don't want to see is some flack come in and delete an entire section repeatedly or edit the page in such a way that its a spin on what was reported. TexianPolitico (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut down the Facebook photo bit to something more more reasonably sized. The rest of the controvery section really needs to be trimmed down to a parahraph of the most relevant info at most. Kevin (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Still Needs Work

This article is unbalanced. The controversy section is given undue weight. The article doesn't even have basic information about the politician's positions — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlohaAnalytics (talk • contribs) 06:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you add them in? We all know you are the same sock puppet that has repeatedly blanked out entire sections of this page that you did not like. Why is it that the only page you ever edit is this one? TexianPolitico (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet Attacks

This page still certainly needs more work, but it is being edited by yet another sock puppet of (Jrut112). May we semi-protect this page through the May 12th election so that only established editors can edit it? In addition to Jrut112 there have been three other sock puppet accounts blocked - (Asalizarroxx) , (Madman4tw) , and (Breckenridgevanilla). Almost as soon as the semi-protection came off this page Jrut112 was right back at it again with yet another new account (AlohaAnalytics) that is just like the others in that it is only used to censor this page. TexianPolitico (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note that the latest sock, AlohaAnalytics, has now been banned and they have done an IP range ban, so hopefully the disruptive edits should stop. Safiel (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Martinez. 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: 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) 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Martinez"