Talk:Mike Arcuri

message: This article seems to have a conservative bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davfoster88 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: Do the voting results on drilling provide any information on this congressperson that couldn't be better summarized? And why do we mention one non-notable scorecard? Carte Rouge (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section. It took up about half the article, making this a coatrack. If someone adds it back, please discuss it here and provide some independent source that this issue is notable in connection with this particular person. Jonathunder (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random voting results 

message: In an attempt to bring this article above "start class" I have been studying other House Rep's Wikipages and trying to make this article more uniform.
This article has a history of edits which seem to be more public relations fluff than a uniform Wiki. I will likely research and prepare "Committees" and "Legislative Highlights" sections to balance out the article, and make it more uniform to other House Member's wikis. Also I note there is much ancillary or extraneous information added which doesn't contribute to the article, such as Arcuri being "only the 3rd Democrat to get elected in the county in "X" years etc., nor were references cited.
This article was beginning to read like a palm-card.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weissman129 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: The article offers an uncited claim that Arcuri is "liberal even by New York standards." One metric, at , suggests that he's among the more conservative Democrats in the House (tied for 160th out of 241). He's also a member of the conservative/moderate Blue Dog coalition. Claim should probably be taken out. 68.194.217.223 (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberal even by New York standards"? 

message: It seems there has been a bit of an edit war here, and no discussion on this page for 10 months. Please discuss here and/or pursue a third opinon or other forms of dispute resolution. If there are serious WP:BLP problems that need fixing, use  to request appropriate fixes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  current dispute 

message: If we could get a little help or perhaps a lock on this page, we again are having issues with vandals removing clearly cited controversies removed from the Rep's page. Not hard to figure out why considering the man's past. They are persistant and have continuously removed cited references. If it continues I will sign in and track down a few editors who are aware of the last few episodes of this occurence.
Again it seems someone sympathetic to Mr. Arcuri cannot resist removing cited items from the "controversy" section.
If you don't like people reading about percieved "negative" activity Mr. Congressman, perhaps you should clean up your act so they aren't written in the first place. Additionally, I note the section noting Mr. Arcuri's bare win over candidate Richard Hanna in 2008 has also been removed. This Wiki is victim to a 'cleanup crew' most likely the work of Arcuri's side. Who else would care or bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.50.152 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would point out that you keep putting in quotes things I'm not saying, indicating you don't know what quotation marks are for, but since you're in blatant violation of WP:SOCK and WP:NPA, I won't bother. Bring Weissman129 over here to agree with you and I might reconsider. The accusations are important, though. The more you claim I'm Mike Arcuri (nope), the more likely you'll get blocked. Şłџğģő 04:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing 'controversy' section. 

message: Ok, I've just deleted the whole controversy section for now. There were 4 references, 3 of which didn't talk about the content (the murder case) at all and 1 of which only talked about 1/4 of the content (and much more favorably then the section itself). I was trying to just slice it down to only fit that 1 reference I could find but then I realized the reference itself also had big issues (since it was talking about a murder case in 06 which appears to have actually happened in 02 etc). If someone wants to rewrite a Neutral section then obviously but that one wasn't salvageable. James (T C) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section

message: He is still the incumbent as I understand till Jan, has this been discussed anywhere? It is being removed from the infobox, what is the general position as regards this? Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incumbent