Talk:Steve Stockman

message: This is an unabashed propaganda piece which brings shame upon wikipedia.65.7.0.129 (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article written by one of Stockman's staffers?

message: this page is ridiculously biased.  Good job wikipedians for cleaning up clear political bias.  You make "wikipedia" synonymous with "bullshit"
Benwetmore 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OKC bombing

message: Stockman did not co-author the Megan's Law. Ex-Cong. Dick Zimmer wrote it.
unsigned comment above, so this isn't really worth debating, but the bill was sponsored by Zimmer and had 27 cosponsors, of which Stockman was one.  Why isn't Megan's law listed along with the bills?  Here's a link to the cosponsors
Benwetmore (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Megan's Law

message: Stockman did not win his first race against Lampson.  He lost both the November election and the court ordered December election. 
69.39.172.127 07:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Runoff

message: This page is ridiculously one-sided and loaded with inflammatory language.  The admins should clean it up.
69.143.125.221 04:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: There are multiple instances of NPOV violations in this article, such as quotations around phrases like "terrorized his wife" and other things I am going to cleanup.
Benwetmore 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This page reads like a campaign website. Seriously, "to define and protect the institution of marriage"? How in the world is that not biased language. That whole section should be tagged. 166.250.101.207 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: Stockman has been on the faculty of the Leadership Institute, which was hilariously described on the Stockman page as "non-partisan."  In fact it boasts of its conservative credentials almost to the exclusion of anything else.  I've deleted my "hyper-conservative" and substituted "very conservative." I noticed a moment ago that the page for Terence Hallinan describes his father as a "leftist attorney."  I think that's very accurate. Similarly, Leadership should be described with its own terms. "Conservative" doesn't begin to express their positions and operations, to wit from Wikipedia: The Institute was founded in 1979 by conservative activist Morton C. Blackwell. Its mission is to "increase the number and effectiveness of conservative activists" and to "identify, train, recruit and place conservatives in politics, government, and media." Notable alumni include Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, (Jack Abramoff money laundering associate) Ralph Reed, (male prostitute James Dale Guckert, a.k.a.) Jeff Gannon, Congressman and Indiana Governor-elect Mike Pence, (and convicted criminal) James O'Keefe,. Activist (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion request

message: IBM does not have this "division". This section claim should be verified or removed; it is clearly false as it stands now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.168.139 (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF is "computer sales and lab researcher division of IBM" ? 

message: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fec-looking-donations-tea-partier
... the AP reported, noting that the donors cited Stockman’s support of the gaming bill and the casino opening. The donations totaled about $10,000 in all.
Well sourced enough yet? Hcobb (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FEC investigation into casino contributions 

message: I've added the neutrality and advertisement tags to this article. There are some clear cases where the article is non-neutral in tone:GabrielF (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 1houstonian:  Please don't shout, and don't interleave your comments with existing text.  --Alexbook (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have refactored 1houstonian's text for readability. I've numbered my examples of problems I see with the article and I've moved 1houstonian's replies below.GabrielF (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not be using press releases or a representative's website as sources for an encyclopedia article. Instead, we should be relying on reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles, research reports or academic journal articles. See WP:SECONDARY. In addition to concerns about sourcing, I have concerns about tone. Stating that a representative "chased" the EPA is considerably less neutral than saying that he requested that the agency expedited its permitting process. The section on Stockman's primary challenge to Cornyn should not begin by describing votes that Stockman objected to. That's not neutral.GabrielF (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Your charges are false, and you are in no position to talk about bias when you're busy here campaigning for Stockman. The reasons that your material has been removed has been explained to you and is not because Stockman's policy positions aren't allowed, it's because your text is filled with biased POV characterizations. I would also note that it is woefully ungrammatical, generally awful illiterate writing that doesn't belong in WP articles. -- Jibal (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: User:1houstonian complains that other editors are trying to turn this into an anti-Stockman article.  Some other editors are accusing 1houstonian of cheerleading.  Edits are being reverted.  We need some grown-ups in the room. --Alexbook (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We have grownups in the room, with the exception of one person who makes false charges, repeatedly violates WP policy, writes badly, and by his own admission is campaigning for Stockman. -- Jibal (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I have already warned you about labeling good-faith edits as vandalism. My removal of content that was non-neutral, undue weight or cited only to press releases falls well within acceptable editing practice, see WP:BRD. By your statement "this is election season and there are lawsuits for libel already on this subject", are you implying that my edits are legally actionable?GabrielF (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Actungberlin: Again, we need to issue a warning about characterizing good faith edits as "vandalism." The fact that you don't agree with an edit does not make it "vandalism". None of the edits you have described constitute "vandalism". Please review Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, Wikipedia is neutral, which is a good reason for people campaigning for Stockman to stay off his page. It's in your own interests to avoid the bans that you and your co-campaigner have experienced. -- Jibal (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Can we avoid an all-out edit war, involving accusations of POV editing? 

message: He is a public figure please do not remove his positions shown with citations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  Can you please try to read up on how we decide what goes in an article?  Not every factoid from a bill the guy introduces is important enough to put in here.  We like secondary sources rather than the texts of bills because they show that someone other than the subject himself thinks that the material is important.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

text: So the newspaper won't write about his bills? That seems really implausible. Can you please consider undoing your own last few edits while we're talking about the material, because you're in violation of WP:3RR.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

text: 1houstonian, that's not how wikipedia works. We base our content on reliable secondary sources. If you have a particular concern about the Houston Chronicle or another source, you're welcome to discuss it here or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard, but all articles and particularly biographies of living persons must be based on reliable secondary sources. In addition, I find it highly dubious that no secondary sources can be found to describe a controversial figure such as Stockman.GabrielF (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that there are reliable secondary sources to describe Stockman -- such as the Houston Chronicle -- but 1houstonian doesn't like what the Houston Chronicle reports about Stockman. Famspear (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Once I manage to translate that paragraph into English, it appears to severely twist facts. who has always endorsed Stockman's opponent in any political race -- perhaps Stockman is an awful candidate and so they had good reason to do so. Regardless, it is irrelevant here; your opinion or anyone's opinion of the paper's agenda or motivation doesn't count at Wikipedia. You have been told this many times but you appear never to have taken it into account or to have responded to it. As long as you fail to follow WP policy, responsible editors will be forced to revert your edits. -- Jibal (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

text: "Someone"?  Check the article's history if you want to know who made the changes.  It's not as if it was done in secret.  (Also, please sign your posts by putting ~~~~ at the end.  That helps keep the discussion orderly.)  --Alexbook (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Figure 

message: just changed this:
Stockman's first run for Congress was in 1990. He faced Beaumont, Texas mayor Maury Meyers in the Republican Primary in March of that year. Oliver North made appearances at two of Stockman's fundraisers, for which he was paid $25,000.
Meyers got 44.3% of the primary vote while Stockman got 41%. Since no candidate had a majority, there was a runoff election and, with the support of third place finisher Steve Clifford, Meyers beat Stockman to win the Republican nomination.
back to this:
He first ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 against Democratic U.S. Representative Jack Brooks. Beaumont, Texas mayor Maury Meyers ranked first in the Republican primary with 45% of the vote, but failed to reach the 50% threshold. Stockman, who earned 41% of the vote, faced Meyers in a run-off. Meyers defeated Stockman 61%-39%. In the general election, Meyers lost to Brooks, 58%-42%.
with the edit summary .  How does this make any sense whatsoever?  First, I have actual RS, like newspapers.  Furthermore the paragraph replaced has an actual factual error in it.  Stockman did not in fact run against Brooks.  He lost in the GOP primary and some other guy ran against Brooks.  This doesn't seem like a reasonable revert.  Please identify exactly what violates NPOV in the material I added.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which of these versions is better? 

message: Let us discuss each of these subsections independently here. My main problem with all this material is that it's self-sourced, so there's no independent verification of its notability.  Reps introduce legislation all the time.  Most of it's not important.  Secondly a lot of it hasn't even made it to the house floor.  Who's to say it ever will?  My feeling is that we should just have stuff that has been discussed in reliable sources in here.  Perhaps we can discuss by subsection?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can try not to frame this as something between defenders and others and remember that our mutual goal is to have an encyclopedic, useful article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Achtungberlin, you seem to be ignoring the problems that have been raised with this text. I don't think anyone objects to including some information about Stockman's positions on energy, but the text needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources (see WP:SECONDARY and it needs to be neutral in tone (see WP:NPOV). As a first step I would recommend that you draft a version of the text here on the talkpage and we can comment on it. GabrielF (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: *The first source is an interview in Platts Horizon, not exactly an independent source but not primary either. --Alexbook (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, I saw that, but is it actually notable to say that a Rep is "in favor of job growth"?  The main stuff is primary-sourced.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling Stockman a "major proponent of job growth" is promotional rather than encyclopedic. Are there politicians who want fewer jobs? GabrielF (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Everybody believes that he's in favor of job growth.  The question is whether it's worth including in the article.  The way we tell whether information is worth including in the article is if it's discussed in secondary sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Please try to take some time to figure out how Wikipedia works.  What's in Coryn's article is not relevant to what goes into this article.  If you think there's stuff there that doesn't belong, go to that article and take it out.  If you think there is a sound reason why this material should remain in this article, say what it is in terms of Wikipedia policies.  In particular if you want this in, try to explain why in terms that are intrinsic to the material, which you ought to do by WP:BURDEN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's fine, but don't keep bringing it up here as a reason to retain or delete information in this article.  It's just not relevant.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The section heading "Protecting our constitution" in the current version of the article is also problematic for the same reasons. GabrielF (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: That makes three of us that think the section should be deleted.  Assuming that  and  are the same and that  is different, there are two that want it in.  Neither has made a policy based argument, so I'm not inclined to give their opinions much weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear user at IP 71.164.187.17: And, what would be your reason for that agreement, in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Famspear (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: It's just not true that what's on Coryn's page matters with regard to what's on this one.  If you want to put stuff about Stockman's law in here, there has to be an independent reason to do it.  What is that?  The guy introduced a bill.  Why is the bill important?  What do neutral sources say about the bill?  That's what we want to put in here.  Please try to give policy based reasons for including material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Positions 

message: Congressman Stockman is a supporter of American Energy Independence and has used his position on the technology committee to question the EPA's technological criteria for evaluating applications on hydraulic fracking.. He has worked on improving the current technologies being used on shale oil and gas production. He is a member of the carbon caucus, supports the keystone pipeline, use of coal, opening up federal lands for drilling as well as hydraulic fracking for shale oil and gas production.
*Here everything's sourced to Stockman's blog posts.  If his positions on energy independence mean anything to anyone it will be in secondary sources.  I think this material should remain out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Achtungberlin, you seem to be ignoring the problems that have been raised with this text. I don't think anyone objects to including some information about Stockman's positions on energy, but the text needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources (see WP:SECONDARY and it needs to be neutral in tone (see WP:NPOV). As a first step I would recommend that you draft a version of the text here on the talkpage and we can comment on it. GabrielF (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy Independence

message: In his term representing District 36, Stockman has been a major proponent of job growth . The District includes Baytown, Pasadena, Deer Park, Mount Bellvieu and is the largest Petrochemical Industrial District of United States. With the advent of production of shale gas, over 100 billion dollars are expected to be invested in the U.S. petrochemical sector over the next few years (most of it in Texas), and over 40 billion dollars in Stockman’s district which will create thousands of new jobs . These plants include Ethylene Crackers, PDH Plants, Methanol manufacturing facilities and others. Stockman as consistently chased the EPA  to expedite permits for new plant construction. Stockman has called on Vice-President Biden to obtain a lifting of what he argues is an EPA  blockade on American jobs. In a statement, Stockman has said that unless the EPA is reformed by streamlining permits and studies and approving the REINS Act, the United States will cease to be an economic power. The "Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny," or REINS, Act would require that any proposed federal regulation costing more than $100 million be approved by Congress and signed by the President.
At 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour, Texas industrial facilities enjoy one of the cheapest power costs in the world which Stockman argues is conducive to investment and job growth and encourages employment. Stockman has favored keeping power costs low .
*Here everything's sourced to Stockman's blog posts except for some basic stats about his district that are kind of non-sequiturs (e.g. "is the largest Petrochemical Industrial District of United States").  If his positions on the economy mean anything to anyone it will be in secondary sources.  I think this material should remain out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *The first source is an interview in Platts Horizon, not exactly an independent source but not primary either. --Alexbook (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, I saw that, but is it actually notable to say that a Rep is "in favor of job growth"?  The main stuff is primary-sourced.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling Stockman a "major proponent of job growth" is promotional rather than encyclopedic. Are there politicians who want fewer jobs? GabrielF (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Everybody believes that he's in favor of job growth.  The question is whether it's worth including in the article.  The way we tell whether information is worth including in the article is if it's discussed in secondary sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy and Jobs

message: Working with Rand Paul, Stockman introduced “Restore The Constitution Act.” That provision is the House companion to Sen. Rand Paul’s “Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act.” Stockman and Paul are working together on the effort.
*I think this should stay out without significant coverage in reliable sources.  Introducing a bill is usually not a notable act for a representative.  Also, one would like to see some independent confirmation of this potentially self-serving statement: "Stockman and Paul are working together on the effort."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to take some time to figure out how Wikipedia works.  What's in Coryn's article is not relevant to what goes into this article.  If you think there's stuff there that doesn't belong, go to that article and take it out.  If you think there is a sound reason why this material should remain in this article, say what it is in terms of Wikipedia policies.  In particular if you want this in, try to explain why in terms that are intrinsic to the material, which you ought to do by WP:BURDEN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's fine, but don't keep bringing it up here as a reason to retain or delete information in this article.  It's just not relevant.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The section heading "Protecting our constitution" in the current version of the article is also problematic for the same reasons. GabrielF (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: That makes three of us that think the section should be deleted.  Assuming that  and  are the same and that  is different, there are two that want it in.  Neither has made a policy based argument, so I'm not inclined to give their opinions much weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear user at IP 71.164.187.17: And, what would be your reason for that agreement, in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Famspear (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: It's just not true that what's on Coryn's page matters with regard to what's on this one.  If you want to put stuff about Stockman's law in here, there has to be an independent reason to do it.  What is that?  The guy introduced a bill.  Why is the bill important?  What do neutral sources say about the bill?  That's what we want to put in here.  Please try to give policy based reasons for including material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Protecting Our Constitution

message: too many people on wikepedia do not seem to agree with the biased editing including removal of quotes, citations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Editing

message: Stockman got some press last week for walking out during the President's State of the Union address.  I think this is probably worth a mention, if somebody can find an NPOV way to describe it. --Alexbook (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree he walked out with threat to impeach because of the impeding implementation thru executive order without congressional approval which Congressman Stockman considers unconstitutional, this is probably more worthy of mention than the out of context quips that laylah and his team keep putting to convert Steve Stockmans page into Senator Cornyns campaign page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, friend, learn to read a page history.  I didn't add any of that stuff you're so concerned about.  Mostly what I've done is take out semiliterate unsourced crapola and also rewrite and add high quality sources to the parts about his previous campaigns and one term in the House.  Why don't you engage with the actual discussion about what should be in the article rather than flinging accusations about my "team"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

text: And as to the actual content proposed by , it doesn't seem as if there's good sourcing for it; even the Houston Chronicle only put it in its blog.  If it meant much it seems as if there'd be an actual newspaper story about it.  Just my feeling about that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Laylah and GabrielF even this maybe more newsworthy than the out of context quips you put in to describe the congressmans tenure http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/196779-stockman-walks-out-of-state-of-the-union  1houstonian  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 05:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

text: the impeding implementation -- what the heck does that mean? One reason that 1houstonian's edits are being reverted is because they aren't written in English. As for Stockman walking out of the SOTU, it should probably be mentioned, with the article from thehill or elsewhere cited, with a single short direct quote from Stockman as to why he walked out. But his reasons should not be stated as a facts (especially since they aren't factual), as 1houstonian has done in the past. -- Jibal (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

text: GabrielF and Laylah please stop trying to convert this into a campaign ad page for Stockmans opponent    George  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.197.34 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with George and request someone to block GabrielF and Laylah from vandalizing this page  AchtungBerlin  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungberlin (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to read WP:VANDAL to get a handle on "vandalism" on Wikipedia.  I don't think it means what you think it means. --Alexbook (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

text: "George" is likely to be yet another sock of 1houstonian ... same nonsensical bogus claims and unWP behavior. -- Jibal (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 State of the Union 

message: I don't know if it's actually likely to do any good, but I've started yet another discussion about this page on the Neutral point of view noticeboard. --Alexbook (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem isn't the page, it's with the editor who has been repeatedly banned but continues with the exact same behavior and is now apparently spawning socks. -- Jibal (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOVN 

message: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/tea-partiers-are-over-steve-stockman
Are the JoAnn Fleming dozen notable? Hcobb (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The laziest statewide campaign to date 

message: The following can be sourced and puts Stockman "on the map", in my opinion!
 Headline-1: Stockman bill allows taxpayers to use same lame excuses as IRS
* http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-bill-allows-taxpayers-to-use-same-lame-excuses-as-irs
Under Stockman’s bill, “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act,” taxpayers who do not provide documents requested by the IRS can claim one of the following reasons:
1.         The dog ate my tax receipts
2.         Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction
3.         Traded documents for five terrorists
4.         Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon
5.         Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room
6.         Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car
7.         Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords
8.         Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar
9.         Was short on toilet paper while camping
10.       At this point, what difference does it make?
QUOTE: "Stockman’s bill comes a week after the IRS refused to turn over to House investigators emails from former Exempt Organizations Divison director Lois Lerner that would implicate agency personnel in illegal targeting of citizens critical of President Barack Obama." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not particularly notable, especially as it comes from a lame duck Congressman and will never be enacted. Hundreds of proposals are introduced in Congress every year, and the vast majority of them are never enacted. Famspear (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I give Stockman points for the humor, though! Famspear (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New NEWS today, for future editing 

message: In January and February, a group of editors (later blocked for sockpuppetry) made significant changes to the article to drop coverage of incidents that might be perceived as negative with respect to Stockman and to introduce weaselly, badly-sourced text about Stockman's policy positions. This version of the text was rejected by a number of experienced editors. In the last 24 hours or so, User:Rimjim007 and User:Americanwinner have repeatedly restored these rejected changes. In doing so they have eliminated several well-sourced paragraphs, including Stockman's controversial comments about the Waco Siege and his calls for investigation of the Kinsey Reports, and his opposition to the bailout of the Mexican peso, as well as his more recent opposition to the Violence Against Women Act and a recent ethics investigation of his office. These users have introduced material that reads as promotional and is largely sourced to Stockman's website (a sample: "Congressman Stockman has never voted for a tax increase and has been a proponent for spending cuts and small government.") These edits are clearly not neutral and need to be reverted.GabrielF (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: us-campaign-committees.findthebest.com/l/37259/Texans-For-A-Conservative-Majority
http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-01-09/texas-pro-cornyn-pac-spends-744000-attacking-stockman/36district (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrected the amount of Money spent by Texans for conservative majority and Cornyn

message: Fact check a felon cannot run for congress or become a congressman, he was obviously engaged in exaggerating his humble beginnings like Hillary Clinton[] in her dead broke claim. His exaggeration was used by his opponents in 2014 Senate Campaign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36district (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One -- you are engaging in original research (WP:OR).  Two -- you are actually factually wrong on this.   Three -- a felon is one who has been convicted of a felony and if the person is not convicted, he is not a felon in the first place.  Three strikes.  Collect (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact Check Early Life

message: Two images have been used - I suggest the one which is a larger image of his face is superior here.
The choices are "Steve Stockman.jpg"   or  "Steve Stockman official portrait.jpg"  which has been the one used for a long time.  Collect (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  image used 

message: Substituted at 07:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I'm wondering about this edit and this edit. I do not at all wish to add any irrelevant information that might unfairly portray a person badly, nor do I wish to whitewash any article for that matter, but the info that was removed does appear to be relevant to Stickman's biography, nor does the info seem biased against Stockman. I will re-add the info for those reasons. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Steve Stockman. 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/20130117185029/http://congressmanstevestockman.com/meet-steve/ to http://congressmanstevestockman.com/meet-steve/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201094805/http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/science-committee-questions-scientific-integrity-of-epa-hydraulic-fracturing to http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/science-committee-questions-scientific-integrity-of-epa-hydraulic-fracturing
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706015618/http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-will-vote-against-reckless-debt-spending-proposal to http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-will-vote-against-reckless-debt-spending-proposal
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added some information on the March 2017 criminal case. The Federal grand jury indictment charges 28 different counts. Stockman is charged with 24 counts and Posey is charged with 15 counts. Twenty-four plus fifteen obviously totals to more than twenty-eight. However, this is not a discrepancy; Stockman and Posey are charged under some of the same counts, but not others. Famspear (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The info on the criminal case could be made more concise. Three massive paragraphs seems a bit bloated, IMO. Also, the section mentions twice (in the second and third paragraphs, respectively) that the trial will begin this month. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal case 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Steve Stockman. 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/20131215121932/http://erlc.com/article/southern-baptist-contingent-in-congress-grows/ to http://erlc.com/article/southern-baptist-contingent-in-congress-grows/
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120610141810/http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/may29_160_state.htm to http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/may29_160_state.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140305180619/https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=218&id=176 to https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=218&id=176
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201094805/http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/science-committee-questions-scientific-integrity-of-epa-hydraulic-fracturing to http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/science-committee-questions-scientific-integrity-of-epa-hydraulic-fracturing
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) 08:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Spelling correction under "Criminal Case" section, paragraph 3, penultimate sentence - should be "trial," not "trail."
Addition to "Criminal Case" section: On April 12, 2018, "Stockman, 61, of Clear Lake, Texas, was convicted of seven counts of mail and wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to make conduit campaign contributions and false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), one count of making coordinated excessive campaign contributions, two counts of making false statements to the FEC, 11 counts of money laundering and one count of filing a false tax return.... Sentencing has been set for Aug. 17." 
Found in news release from US Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Thursday April 12, 2018. Also in Texas Tribune on April 12. 205.189.35.2 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: trail -> trial. Thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion