Talk:Matt Gonzalez/Archive 3

message: 17 February 2005 17:30 (PST)
The proposed article is not an improvement in quality or style. Its proponent offers heavy-handed criticism of the existing article and little support.  Without clear or specific reasons, criticism mostly relies on sweeping, ambiguous statements about the main article’s topicality, factual support, centrality, grammar, citations, and neutrality.  Reasons for removing/replacing an entire wiki article should require more than speculation and full replacements must demonstrate a higher degree of quality for serious consideration. It doesn’t, and numerous concerns about the editor’s quality in the proposed article have been raised and included on the talk page. Rasax 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One need only look at the article to see how sloppy and unworthy of the Wikipedia it is. Text is underlined for no reason. Eighty percent of the citations are to one place -- the SF Bay Guardian. Grammatical errors are legion. Please clean it up.
*Would you mind being more specific about the article and less editorial?  Thanks.  Rasax 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please... You expect me to test the links for you? C'mon... That's your job. Please get to it. Griot 21:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's becoming clear to me that you have no interest in cleaning up this article. Griot 21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As I wrote below on this page: Testing the links should be easy. Click each link in the article and see if it still works. For the many misspellings, you might try copying the text into a word processor and using the software's spell-checker. Here's a tangible thing you can do right away: For some reason, most of your "External links" links list two dates. There is no reason for that. You could start by fixing those double dates. (BTW, the Wikipedia convention is to call this section "External links" [note initial caps], not "Works cited and referenced." Griot 21:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 1) A "random test" isn't good enough. Test all of them. 2)"As for the external dates, I'm not sure what you mean..." C'mon Raxax, get with it. I marked about a dozen of these "double dates" in the article. Please fix them, as well as the double dates I didn't mark. Griot 23:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)Wikipedia does not use MLA styles. If you can find a single article in the Wikipedia that uses the MLA double-date notation, I'd like to know about it. 2)If you want to use this MLA style, you are oblilged to apply it to all the references in "External links." An editorial style has to apply to all text, not some of it. I think because you are the only person who uses this MLA style in all of the Wikipedia, you are obliged to remove these double dates and confirm with the Wikipedia style. Please clean up your article, Rasax; I'm frankly tired of arguing for a basic level of scholarshiop here. Griot 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia does have a house style. Please make the external links conform to the house style. Griot 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Gonzalez used the word "epiphany" to describe why he joined the Green Party. Look up that word and tell me whether it has religious overtones. Sheesh. And seeing as you're too lazy to look up the word, try clicking on it in the article. I've provided a wiki-link to "epiphany" just for you. Griot 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point Of View Template

message: *A. Factual errors
*B. Weighted down with POVs
*C. Too much editorializing
*D. Unneeded detail, poorly written, and "sprawling"
*E. Too many footnotes
*F. Not Objective
*G. Not balanced
*H. A puff piece
*I.  Numerous grammatical errors
*J.  A "paltry number of edits" (gotta love this one with a sense of humor)
*K. Directly cites a source without quoting it (1)
*L.  Nobody reads past the first or second paragraph (which is it?)
*M. Too long.  Main article word count as of today: 2,352.  Proposed article word count: 2563.
(1) Plagiarism is a serious charge and shouldn't be taken lightly.  When the editor states, "...much of the material is copied verbatum from Gonzalez campaign Web sites and the SF Bay Guardian," it is an accusation of plagiarism.  
People with an academic background will recognize it as grounds for expulsion from numerous institutions and are provided with adequate training to avoid it.  Defined as a "presentation of someone else's ideas or words as your own," plagiarism should not be confused with summarizing (Fowler & Aaron).  It is not plagiarism to summarize information from verifiable, secondary sources with acknowledgement.  Direct quotes are cited as such.  Unless the editor can cite specific, concrete examples of deliberate plagiarism, and not accidental, the claim should immediately be withdrawn.  The editor cannot reasonably claim to argue "for a basic level of scholarshiop [sic, (Griot 22:50, 19 February 2006)]," and make unsupported claims of plagiarism.  Intentional plagiarism is equally deplorable as alleging it without sufficient support.  Source: Fowler and Aaron.  The Little, Brown Handbook, 8th edition. Rasax 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current and previous claims made about existing article

message: *A. It is objective
*B. Paints a thorough picture
*C. Paints a concise picture
*D. Paints an accurate picture (as in the dig to label Gonzalez's decision to join the GP as a conversion with religious overtones.  Right.) Rasax 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gonzalez used the word "epiphany" to describe why he joined the Green Party. Look up that word and tell me whether it has religious overtones. Sheesh. And seeing as you're too lazy to look up the word, try clicking on it in the article. I've provided a wiki-link to "epiphany" just for you. Griot 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims about proposed article

message: #"What can you use to support your beliefs with about the following claims [with ?]"  -- rasax, 28 November 2005, Discussion page: Matt Gonzalez, §2.1.
#"In your words, Griot, what does your intro improve?  How?  In looking at the first few sentences, I'd like to know what you use for evaluating a good intro and how yours meets that objective.  What key information does your suggestion tell a reader about the article's general tone that's missing from the first?  How does it relate to the overall theme?  Which one tells a reader more about the subject's biography?  Why?" -- rasax, 28 November 2005, Discussion page: Matt Gonzalez, §2.1.1.  
25 February 2006. 12:30 (PST).  The sum of these claims amounted to a misspelling of former SF District Attorney Hallinan's first name being corrected, fixing eight typos, and re-routing of some hyperlinks cited to Beyondchron.org and San Francisco Independent.  I'd like to add that links to the San Francisco Independent were submitted and cited by the same editor who has made broken links a centerpiece reason for maintaining the cleanup template, and the context to which either article is used remains unclear.  Neither adjustment validates the argument that the current article is: 1. factually incorrect nor unsupported, 2. biased by POV, 3. editorial, 4. "poorly written" and "sprawling," 5. non-topical, 6. unbalanced, 7. contains "numerous grammatical errors," 8. cites sources without using direct quotes, 9. and "a puff piece" (as previous claimed).  Unless the editor can support the centrality of the reasons given, and indicated in the templates used, both templates on the main article should be removed immediately or recognized as vandalism.  Rasax 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about claim validity

message: As of yet, the suggested article's author responds by ignoring questions about it (See §2.1 ).  It's difficult to ignore some similarities between the current and proposed articles, but there's a key difference or two.  The proposed article uses a similar organizational style, sentences from the current, and formatting.  Where they differ is historical content. The mayoral race trimmed to just four sentences in the proposed version (See §1.1.4 ) , and readers wouldn't know it was one of the most competitive local campaigns in years.  They're informed about it by the current article . 
The editor gives a hint about why a change is wanted, starting out with "to my mind" (See history file for November 29).  In other words, personal and unsupported.  Without more information, this reader was left wondering if the editor intended to suggest personal beliefs are sufficient grounds for removing an entire article.  If so, isn't it the same as cherry-picking out what we dislike in any Wiki article and resubmitting it with a "new and improved" label?  And, since facts are often reasonable enough to prove or disprove, do factual errors constitute grounds for using a point of view template?  It's included among the reasons given. Unless the centrality of each claim is reasonably supported, the POV template should be removed Rasax 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proponent for the current Wiki article responds

message: 16 February 2006 19:15 (PST)
The template used suggests a cleanup may be required when a rationale is offered on the talk page.  Criticism alone isn't reasonable proof and haste doesn't warrant it. Unless the editor can offer something more of substance, unsupported beliefs shouldn't be enough reason to saddle an article with a cleanup template. Rasax 04:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where to start? How about if you begin by fixing the numerous dead links? And spell Hallinan's name correctly? You could wiki him while you're at it.
*A good start is the confusing nature of the criticism offered.  As a test, the article's first ten links are working as intended.  The double r in Hallinan's first name is a minor error anyone can correct and doesn't warrant the need for a cleanup template. Rasax 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found 21 dead links. Please fix them. The misspelling of Hallinan's name is typical of the numerous misspellings. Please fix them.
*Again, your comments are as confusing as your template.  Please be specific or remove the template. Thank you.  Rasax 20:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, it's your article. I'm not your English teacher. It's not my job to point out the numerous errors you made. Please try to read your article with a cirtical eye. Testing the links should be easy. Click each link in the article and see if it still works. For the many misspellings, you might try copying the text into a word processor and using the software's spell-checker. Here's a tangible thing you can do right away: For some reason, most of your "External links" links list two dates. There is no reason for that. You could start by fixing those double dates. (BTW, the Wikipedia convention is to call this section "External links" [note initial caps], not "Works cited and referenced." I will be happy to continue to point out these and other errors, scholarly and otherwise, if you take it upon yourself to fix the errors instead of feigning confusion or pretending to be insulted because someone has faulted your pseudo-scholarship. Griot 21:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup template

message: ===§1.0 Early years===
Sensationalism from Guthrie article headline recognized and put into an appropriate context with secondary, veryifiable sources for information.  Rasax 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions and edits to current article

message: Sensationalism from Guthrie article headline recognized and put into an appropriate context with secondary, veryifiable sources for information.  Rasax 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: §1.0 Early years

message: Background info more organized, separate, and with links. Rasax 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: §1.1 Education

message: Section now just states "Office of the Public Defender" and the years.  "...in nine years" re-edited out since readers are given the length of time in the subsection header, and it's redundant.  D.A. race info moved to §2.0, Politics and Public Service, where subject is pertinent. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: §1.2 Office of the Public Defender, 1991 to 2000

message: Section created, and Gonzalez's political experience is organized into subsections. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: §2.0 Politics and Public Service

message: Moved intro from §2.2 to support opening statement in this section.  POV comments left in text removed.  The opening supported by actual events should adequately support the significance and any POV questions about it.  "Registered" trivializes the significance of the candidacy and public sentiment in the district.  Re-stated to simply remark that the candidate went Green and the district followed. Rasax 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: §2.1 Board of Supervisors, 2001 to 2005

message: Previously listed as §2.4, now indicated as §2.2.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: §2.2.1 Criticism

message: Section added, sources cited. Rasax 04:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: §2.2.2 Increased Green Party visability

message: Paragraph 5, sources cited, added to list. Rasax 04:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: §2.3 Campaign for Mayor, 2003

message: Section moved to follow section about campaign. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign interview

message: Section added and source citations included. Rasax 04:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: §2.3.1 Claims of a Democrat-Republican Campaign Alliance

message: Previously indicated as §5.0, now §3.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: §3.0 Return to Private Life

message: Subsection added 7 December, details added, sources cited. Rasax 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: §3.1 Lawsuit to void SF school chief's pay raise

message: Changed from "External links."  Sources cited in chronological order. Rasax 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: §4.0 References

message: Previously indicated as §7.0, now §5.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: §5.0 Further reading

message: 1. Repair all dead hyperlinks (2/18/06).  
*Editor states there are dead links but refuses to list them.  A random test of the first and last ten links found each working as intended and will assume there is no problem. Rasax 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup: Tasks to Do to Clean Up Article 

message: From my perspective, criticism of this article is totally justified. It is simply a puff-piece that glorifies someone who actually was more of a beneficiary of District Elections than a "signal" of a change in SF politics.
Why include his whole Mayoral campaign platform? Just link to his website.
:It's plain to me, too. But good luck trying to get her to fix it or even acknowledge any criticism. Griot 16:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Orwellian terms? Kind of melodramatic, don't you think? The guy has a very legitimate criticism and you ignore it. And Ras, you broke the mould this time! "He described his father's employment with Brown & Williamson in the late '50s and early '60s as a salesman who sold 'cigarettes from the back of his car in south[ern] Texas.'" Putting aside grammar and style errors, why do you persist in denying that his father was a business executive? The family lived in Puerto Rico, Maryland, Kentucky, and New Orleans until Gonzalez was age 11. Are you suggesting that he sold cigarettes from the back of a car in those locations? Griot 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The man could not have been selling cigarettes out of his car in Kentucky, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and New Orelans. It's that simple. This article explains where the Gonzalez family lived. It also states, "His father, Mateo Gonzalez, was a division chief for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson." Division chiefs do not sell cigarettes from the back of cars. Am I suggesting that Gonzalez may have mischaracterized his father's past in his interview to the Chronicle editorial board? Am I suggesting -- egads! -- that a politician may have equivocated with the truth? I am. And as a scholar, your job is to root out the truth behind the static. Please don't persist in this car cigarette selling hoo-hah nonsense. Griot 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Total. Puff. Piece. Griot 00:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I already explaned to you at some length, you are the only person on Wikipedia who uses the MLA citation style. That style makes absolutely no sense in the context of live links. You external links are useless to anyone who wants to learn more about Gonzalez. You have delivered a poorly written puffpiece that is of no use to anyone. Nobody reads your article. Have you noticed that? Griot 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Find me one article on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I dare ya. I double dare ya. Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Find me one article -- just one -- on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I double dare ya. I triple dare ya. Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Find me one article -- just one itty-bitty teensy-weensy article -- on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I triple dare ya. I quadruple dare ya. (It's okay to be wrong now and then.) Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Puff Piece