Talk:Simon Sefzik

Name in infobox
WP:NICKNAME states, "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not the person's "real" name." In the reliable sources I've run across, the subject is referred to as "Simon." References are probably needed to use a nickname in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing Sourced Information
There seems to be a trend of removal of large amounts of sourced information on this page. Sefzik's background information, political experience, and activity in the legislature are relevant and make this page more complete. When information is accurate and sourced, please retain that information on the page unless there are necessary clarifications or obvious errors. --Burlington6718 (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your change here introduces several issues. Writing unexpectedly passed away in Wikipedia's voice is a violation of WP:EUPHEMISM. The content about Sefzik working in the White House Office is completely unsourced. Your paragraph starting with Sefzik has rapidly started to make an impact on the Washington State Senate seems to be written in violation of WP:PROMO, WP:PUFF, or WP:COI. Wikipedia pages should not be written as advertisements. If the only problem you have with my attempts to clean up your problematic writing is that I introduced a typo (Sefzig)," then feel free and change it. KidAd  •  SPEAK  18:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the discussion. The information about Sefzik working in the White House Management Office is sourced in multiple articles referenced. Please review. Euphemisms can be a targeted removal, without doing away with large swaths of sourced information (as in previous edits). "Typos" such as last name misspellings (Sefzig) or improper nicknames ("Sim," never used by Sefzik at any point), should not be repeatedly added back into the article when it is clear that they are incorrect. WP:PROMO explicitly describes how content ought to be written: "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Information about Sefzik's work in the Senate, committee assignments, or plans to run are clearly not advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment. Information about how Sefzik has been endorsed by party officials has similarly been phrased in a neutral point of view, merely reporting on events rather than offering endorsements or advocating in Wikipedia's voice. The removal of giant swaths of accurate information is not "cleaning up problematic writing." Information about political figures, when sourced and objective, is properly included on Wikipedia. Edits on this page should be limited to those which make the page more complete and accurate, not those that simply remove information that is not desired. If you have specific and targeted edits that will improve the article by actually making it more complete or accurate, please do make them! Thank you for your response, and I hope this clears up your concerns. --Burlington6718 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I have made edits to eliminate the creeping WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO, and WP:PUFF issues. Feel free to gain consensus if you still have problems with these changes. KidAd  •  SPEAK  04:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, I think those latest edits are good and well-taken. They are more targeted and I think while the information removed is certainly permissible, I don't believe the page is incomplete without it. Better to avoid the line there. Thanks for the clarification and discussion. --Burlington6718 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)