Talk:Michael San Nicolas

Article needs lots of link work
Any fellow Guam editors want to help! Sprinkler21 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230094843/http://gec.guam.gov/2012/12/03/official-2012-general-election-results/ to http://gec.guam.gov/2012/12/03/official-2012-general-election-results/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106091106/http://gec.guam.gov/2014/11/05/unofficial-results-of-the-2014-general-election/ to http://gec.guam.gov/2014/11/05/unofficial-results-of-the-2014-general-election/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Content is not neutral
, 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)

Removal of sourced content
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)


 * The section on "financial services" does not contain noteworthy content. "Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Jneds (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Removing my properly cited entry on the house ethics investigation is completely unethical. Jneds (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)