Talk:Michael San Nicolas

Michael San Nicolas was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 15, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Territories This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Territories of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject United States TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject United States TerritoriesUnited States Territories articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted on 16 August 2013 by reviewer Tazerdadog (talk · contribs). U.S. Congress This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Micronesia: Guam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Guam work group. United States: State Legislatures This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures. This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Any fellow Guam editors want to help! Sprinkler21 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

@

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Michael San Nicolas/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Christine (talk · contribs) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. I know this has been languishing in the queue for a long time, but please be patient with me. This is a long, complicated article, about a subject I know little about, so it may take me a while to complete. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Your prose is a list of facts and trivia about San Nicolas. Part of the reason it comes across this way is that your paragraphs are too short; see

   WP:PARAGRAPH

   . Your overall prose is weak; it should flow better and include transitions between ideas.

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

   Please see

   MOS:HEADCAPS

   for the MOS guidelines for titles of sections, which states that WP uses sentence case. Your sections also tend to be too short. For example, the "Issues" section doesn't need to be broken up into so many subsections.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   B. All

   reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

   :

   The format of the sources are inconsistent and incomplete. For example, some have accessdates, while others do not. I suggest that you use templates to ensure that you include all the required source information.

   C. It contains no original research:

   There seems to be a problem with utilization of sources. For example, there's nothing in ref3 about the political positions of his grandfather and great-grandfather, and that Quitugua was his maternal grandfather. That same source only mentions that San Nicholas graduated from Southern High School. You don't have a source for the information about his marriage. Your sources need to support your statements clearly; the reports you cite (refs 8 and 9) only list the number of votes he received, and not that he "served three consecutive terms in the Guam Legislature". This is a problem throughout the article, so I won't cite any more examples. I suggest that you go through the content and make sure that the sources explicitly support your statements.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I'm not sure about this, since I don't know much about the topic. However, I'd suspect that there are more sources about San Nicolas' House ethics investigation. Perhaps more research needs to be done, although if you assure me that there isn't, I'll take your word for it. Good luck.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Benefit of the doubt again.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

   There was some contention just this month (Feb. 2020) on the talk page about the removal of content in the "Financial services" section, although it's seemed to be resolved. There has been some discussion about if this article is promotional. There was an edit war back in 2018, which was also resolved in a productive way.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   There is just one image, in the infobox.

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

   I wonder if there are more free images out there, since San Nicolas is a politician and there might be usable images of him on government websites. However, if you assure me that there are not, I'll assume good faith and take your word for it.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The current version of this article, without addressing the above, are enough to fail this article for GA. There are systematic issues that need to be resolved before it can pass to GA. I thought that it would take much longer to review, but since there are consistent issues with references, prose, and format, this review is more general. I didn't include many specific things for you to improve because so it needs so much work throughout the article. I usually give folks 7 days to work on issues, but for this article, I'm giving you 14 days (until 3/14/2020) to improve it.

No movement has been done in this GAN, so I'll have to, with regret, fail it. Please let me know if you choose to improve it in the future, and I'll assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]