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 sourcedmust 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 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 within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
GeminiPiper13671 (talk·contribs) has been paid by City of Portland, Office of Commissioner Gonzalez on their behalf. Employment relationship disclosed here.
Shane Dixon Kavanaugh (August 7, 2024). "Portland Commissioner Rene Gonzalez spent thousands in city funds to polish Wikipedia page". OregonLive. Archived from the original on August 9, 2024. Retrieved August 8, 2024. Rene Gonzalez, the Portland city commissioner and candidate for mayor, recently paid $6,400 to spruce up his profile on Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia maintained by volunteer editors. He did so using city taxpayer dollars.
Hi there, this is a shared account from commissioner-elect Rene Gonzalez to provide feedback until his communications team takes over (late 2022 or 2023). Acknowledging potential conflicts per wikipedia guidelines, with the following initial suggested revisions:
Please reach out to campaign@reneforportland.com for a photo, but note the campaign owns the photo used in the Oregonian endorsement, which may be used here.
With respect to the lease, here is the final Administrative Law Decision: https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/appeal-order.pdf Key quote in decision (p.15) on the fine: "According to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the Director’s methodology and calculations were oversimplified and inappropriate to determine fair market value of commercial real estate in downtown Portland under the current socioeconomic conditions affecting the market."
@Reneforportland: Thank you for commenting on the Talk page, really appreciate not diving straight into the article. Some replies:
I've added this, thanks for the link
Photos on Wikipedia are a bit of a pill, but tl;dr: is that we can't just take the photo from the Oregonian based on being told so here. You can upload a photo directly at our media repository if you have permission to share a freely-licensed photo, or I can shoot you an email and help find an easier workaround.
Wikipedia generally doesn't cite primary sources, and the article does note already that the fine was overturned in court. Are you suggesting we should add the reason?
For #3, the court's reasoning might be helpful for readers, as the court did not find this a close case. For example, in a couple of places the court noted the evidence was overwhelming in Candidate Gonzalez's favor:
Page 14: "According to the overwhelming weight of expert testimony, the current state of the commercial real estate market – particularly ground-floor retail and office space – in downtown Portland is weak due to repeated civil unrest, increased homelessness, vagrancy, as well as both personal and property crimes."
Page 15-16: "According to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the Director’s methodology and calculations were oversimplified and inappropriate to determine fair market value of commercial real estate in downtown Portland under the current socioeconomic conditions affecting the market."
The Oregonian Endorsement link above still looks broken on the main page.
Vandalism and Threats Against Campaign. Another part of the story in race was that our campaign office was vandalized 3 times, and a 4th vandalism/direct action attempt was thwarted by police. 2 of the 4 vandalisms/attempts were tied to what called police have called "anarchist' or "antifa" groups; a third also appears likely politically motivated. Here are stories for each:
Willamette Week would eventual label Hardesty's mailers as a "lie": https://www.wweek.com/news/2022/11/09/we-sorted-through-election-mailers-many-voters-just-recycled/ "The implication that Rene Gonzalez is a Republican. The bright red mailer from the Jo Ann for Portland Committee did not explicitly make that charge, but it used the word 'Republican' four times in a silhouette of Gonzalez, along with the names Marjorie Taylor Greene (four times), Christine Drazan, Ted Cruz, Kevin Mannix and 'Right to Life' (three times). Gonzalez is certainly more conservative than Jo Ann Hardesty, but he’s a pro-choice Democrat." Reneforportland (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the vandalism is what led to the thank you to supporters on his Twitter that tagged Quincy Franklin - we did not know who he was, but he had video taped words of encouragement and shared on instagram after office was vandalized and threatened with further vandalism. It was odd Mercury focused on the shared instagram post, without referencing the well documented vandalism and threats it was in response to. Reneforportland (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The city must pay back the tens of thousands of dollars it withheld from Gonzalez, who bested incumbent Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty in the Nov. 8 race for city council.
In a statement Wednesday, the auditor’s office said Allen’s decision impacted their original determination, saying “the evidence no longer supported allegations of prohibited contributions.” Reneforportland (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Hi! I work with Commissioner Rene Gonzalez and have some feedback/suggested edits to help improve the article about him. I wanted to acknowledge potential conflicts per Wikipedia guidelines. I am following the process Wikipedia has created for the subject of articles to suggest corrections and updates for volunteer editors to assess. Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. I will not edit the page myself, as strongly suggested at WP:COI.
I have the following initial suggested revisions:
1. In the Infobox, please add his law degree from Willamette University.
Rationale: Replaces Primary source that is a broadcast debate with a well-regarded secondary source, The Oregonian. Removes “registered” as that is not reflected in the source.
Done
4. In the Portland City Council, Council race section, please remove the last sentence of the third paragraph:
The Portland Mercury criticized Gonzalez for posting an election thank you to supporters on his Twitter and tagging Quincy Franklin, a member of the far-right-wing group Patriot Prayer.[4]
Rationale: The Portland Mercury is an alternative newspaper that blends opinion and advocacy into most of its stories. The article cited here is a self-evident opinion piece, part of a weekly op-ed column by the editor of the paper. Gonzalez was not even given an opportunity to respond to the sensationalistic allegation, a clear indication that this is editorial commentary. A few highlights from the column:
"By the way, thanks a pantload, WEST HILLS and GRESHAM for your help in getting Gonzalez elected,”
and
“The party of domestic terrorism (Republicans) are quickly realizing their strategy of destroying democracy and taking away abortion rights has bitten them in the ass, as Democrats have taken big leads in state legislatures and are tantalizingly close to taking the senate.”
Per WP:RELIABLE SOURCES: “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.”
This story fits this policy perfectly. This bias of this particular example is obvious from the language of the piece and because it’s from a regular weekly column by the editor. This author is a partisan who is very open that he was trying to keep Gonzalez from getting elected and wants to damage him politically in the future.,
An actual news reporter would have contacted Gonzalez and Gonzalez would have explained that on election night, when responding to congratulations by large numbers of people, he didn’t have time to research all their backgrounds. As soon as he noticed that one of the congratulatory notes came from an unsavory individual, he deleted the tweet.
The story is unreliable to support statements of fact and the sentence should be deleted.
Not done I agree this source is sketchy, but it is in fact attributed in-text as an opinion rather than a fact -- I have emphasized this by adding the name of the journalist. I have no strong personal opinion about whether this criticism is due weight and if any other univolved editors want to remove it that's fine by me, but I'm not going to do it as part of the COI edit request. Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. In the Portland City Council, Council term section, please combine the first two sentences, which currently read:
Gonzalez's term began on January 1, 2023. The transition team is being headed by Tom Miller, a former chief of staff for former city commissioner Sam Adams.[5] Gonzalez will serve a two-year term before needing to run again.[6]
To this:
Gonzalez's two-year term began on January 1, 2023. The transition team was led by Tom Miller, who had served as chief of staff for former Portland mayor Sam Adams.[5][6]
Rationale: The first sentence added missing information from sources that Sam Adams was the former Portland mayor, and the tense of the sentence was updated to be grammatically correct. Information about Gonzalez’s “two-year term” was added to the first sentence to provide this information concisely, making it unnecessary to repeat the info in a separate sentence.
6. In the Portland City Council, Council term section, please update the last sentence that reads:
Gonzalez was assigned management of Portland Fire & Rescue and other emergency services, excluding the police department.[7][8]
To this:
Gonzalez was assigned management of Portland Fire & Rescue, the Bureau of Emergency Communications, and Portland Bureau of Emergency Management.[9][10]
Rationale: I replaced the current citations, a government website and a Q&A from Willamette Week, with ones from the Portland Tribune and Oregon Public Broadcast, in accordance with WP:Reliable sources. The names of the specific departments Gonzalez managed during his tenure were added for clarity, and I removed the language “excluding the police departments,” as that was not mentioned in the source.
Not done. In your sources, I'm seeing the following:
"Commissioner Rene Gonzalez – Public Safety, Bureaus: Portland Fire & Rescue, Fire & Police Disability & Retirement , Bureau of Emergency Communications, Portland Bureau of Emergency Management Liaison Responsibilities, Regional Disaster Policy Organization, Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (with Commissioner Mingus Mapps), BOEC User Board"</ref>[11]
and
"Portland Fire & Rescue and the Bureau of Emergency Communications."[9]
8. In the Portland City Council, Council term section, please add a new paragraph to the end of the section:
In December 2023, Gonzalez announced his candidacy for mayor of Portland on the platform of public safety, homelessness, drugs, and revitalizing the economy.[13]
Rationale: Updates article with the recent news Gonzalez declared he was running for mayor of Portland.
Partly done, the platform phrasing seemed like too-close paraphrasing of the source, so I have added just the information that he was running for mayor. Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on above: That MAX train video lacked audio, and the camera angle showing the woman sitting near him was from the other end of the car (the cam that briefly showed her face aimed too high to record her sitting down; you could barely see both of them or hear anything). All it shows is R.G.'s face staying composed, which, instead of him avoiding escalating any conflict, was interpreted as "nothing happened" by the same people who called riots "protests." R.G. deserves the benefit of the doubt if he said she made him uncomfortable, given all the drug incidents and lethal stabbings that have occurred on TriMet. That "overblown" train incident was also used to downplay general crime in Portland, a city losing businesses and population over that very issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.52.169 (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above was written by someone who "used to live in Portland" and may be willfully ignorant of the 2020 crime wave that compelled Gonzalez to run for mayor in the first place. CONTEXT: A week before the train story, a Honda belonging to one of Gonzalez' relatives was torched (likely by Antifa) outside his house, making him generally wary, as as any public figure would be. The MAX train video lacked audio, and the camera angle showing the woman sitting near him was from the other end of the car (the cam that briefly showed her face aimed too high to record her sitting down; you could barely see both of them or hear anything). All it shows is R.G.'s face staying composed, which, instead of him avoiding escalating any conflict, was interpreted as "nothing happened" by the same people who called riots "protests." R.G. deserves the benefit of the doubt if he said she made him uncomfortable, given all the drug incidents and lethal stabbings that have occurred on TriMet. That "overblown" train incident was also used to downplay general crime in Portland, a city losing businesses and population over that very issue. (Someone deleted a version of this comment earlier. Please state your motive instead of deleting counterpoints.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.52.169 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment wasn't deleted, it was moved so it wasn't in the middle of someone's message. Basically it's a reply, not an interruption. tedder (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quote Tweeting Andy Ngo: "Antifa/anarchists have terrorized my family & my city. I appreciate you calling a spade a spade & recognize you have been terrorized for it."
See WP:SPS and WP:DUE. If we know the account is authentic, we can use it to source things like their birthday, but beyond that we refrain from using it. Given that it's only been picked up by a local, progressively, weekly rag sheet, I don't think it's WP:DUE. Graywalls (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that happens is WP:DUE, we can't cover every twitter exchange by every politician. The removed wording about this was extremely misleading and read as Gonzalez fully endorsing some claim by Ngo, which is left to the reader's imagination. The actual context is that Ngo responded to Gonzalez disagreeing with his tweet, and Gonzalez responded back saying he appreciated one detail in Ngo's tweet while disagreeing with his central point. The Mercury is far from a neutral source on this topic and even they noted the back and forth.
If this is added back it at least needs to accurately represent what happened, but I agree that it probably shouldn't be included at all. Jamedeus (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamedeus:, The Oregonian article describes the piece as a column. Well, generally, we don't use columns for BLP stuff and this is right up there with celebrity gossip stuff. Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcpusc restoring an old version seems extreme, why not just undo the edit that made the changes in question? The vast majority of the content you removed is unrelated and includes well-sourced additions from other editors, including a paragraph about the paid editing. Jamedeus (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the editor followed the WP:PAID editor restrictions and I'm confused why they've been wholesale reverted - I don't think this article adds any new information, they disclosed in their COI statement that they "work with Commissioner Rene Gonzalez", which IMO implies paid editing pretty directly. Are there issues with specific edits? Certainly a politician using public funds to clean up his wikipedia page is sketchy but that doesn't affect whether the editor followed on-wiki policy.
Although, there's a case to be made about likely reputation management PR editing, which isn't quite the same as error correction/outdated information removal, as as removal of allegations about certain things done by someone with the same name, but not the same person. Even if paid, the latter isn't much of a COI issue. However, reputation polishing is.
Edit request by template in my opinion isn't ideal for political/controversial matters that is well watched, because the reputation management firm could ask a Wikipedia off wiki to implement it.
This PR agent's dump and go strategy suggests simply requesting changes wanted by commissioner's office. They've since disappeared after making the request.
There's been previous City of Portland connected PR editing. I'm not sure if it was city communications staff or a vendor that time around though. See EAOC97 (talk·contribs) and their edits, who polished PBOT and Eudaly. Dove3579 (talk·contribs) similarly polished Hardesty and PBOT. Although I can't say with more specificity per WP:OUTING, there's enough off-wiki evidence that the latter user is city government connected and very likely committed undisclosed paid editing by making editing as part of their work related role. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A personal coworking relationship would be a COI whether paid or not, so I don't see how declaring COI in those terms identifies the paid nature of the request. Furthermore, the paid editing disclosure must identify both the client and the entity paying the editor, who are distinct in the case of edits requested by a PR firm. Terminator 2 really happened (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeminiPiper13671:, because someone from Gonzalez's office created a shared account in 2022 as revealed here, I just want to make sure you're aware that the account must only be used by one person and only one person and using a shared account is absolutely prohibited. If another agent will be making a request, that person must use a different account, and also properly disclose the PR firm for which they're working, as well as the client. Graywalls (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the user who submitted Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician)#Edit Request June 25, 2024 for an independent editor to review. I work as an employee for Commissioner Gonzalez and I declared a conflict of interest, following the Wikipedia instructions at WP:COI. I do not fall under any of the criteria of WP:PAID. I am not employed by a PR or Wikipedia agency and my work for the Commissioner does not include being compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of the article. I am also not an intern. I followed the instructions for a COI editor, not a paid editor, because I met none of the paid editor criteria. I do not wish to disclose anything further about myself per WP:PRIVACY. Our office has been subject to threats and violence in the past, and I would ask others to be mindful of our real world security concerns. The proposal was based on a list of mistakes and omissions I identified, which an agency called WhiteHatWiki helped me craft into a proposal to assure it followed Wikipedia policy, including disclosing my COI. I had the final control over the Request Edit items, language and the submission itself. An independent Wikipedia editor from the Request Edit queue reviewed it. I do not have any other user accounts and this user account is not shared with anyone else. I hope that clarifies matters. GeminiPiper13671 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a paid intern for working for the City of Portland and you're doing this on work time, it is considered paid editing. Is this not the case? Also, if you're salaried "work time" becomes moot. Graywalls (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, they said they are not an intern, but do seem to be stating they are a City of Portland employee (though that fact still is not clearly stated). 97.120.117.100 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeminiPiper13671: I'm a reporter for The Signpost and I will likely quote some of your response here in a story. The Signpost is the independent newspaper for Wikipedia editors published on Wikipedia. See our latest issue here. The next issue, where there will very likely be an article on this situation, will come out as early as Sunday evening.
As I understand the situation you are an employee of Commissioner Gonzalez and are paid for the work you do for him. Is that correct?
That the city of Portland, Oregon paid $6,400 to WhiteHatWiki, for WHW to advise you how to format a request to change this article, what you can request, what you can't or shouldn't request, some suggested wording, etc. and how to submit the request. Is that correct?
But you weren't paid any of the $6,400, which only went to WHW. You only received your regular salary for working for Gonzalez. Is that correct?
If I understand the situation correctly, you needed to formally declare that you are a paid editor (you came close, but there is a definite difference between a conflict of interest situation and a paid editing situation). I'm not accusing you or your employer of doing anything in bad faith. But you would have needed to declare something like
"I am a paid editor, my employer is the city of Portland, Oregon, my client is Rene Gonzalez, and my affiliation is WhiteHatWiki" (if those are indeed the proper employer, client, and affiliations). Could you do that now?
I think some people think they are not paid editors unless the boss comes to them and says something like "This is what I want you to write on Wikipedia, you have to do it now during business hours" or something along those lines. Sometimes we get some stories like "Oh, I had some free time during work and just decided all by myself that it would be nice if the boss's Wikipedia page looked a bit better" or "I didn't do this at the office. I just went home and after watching the news, I found some notes in my briefcase and just decided to write them up on Wikipedia before going to bed." Wikipedians don't tend to believe those stories. I think you can see why. So please do reread WP:PAID. It is very inclusive on who is considered a paid editor, what compesation means, etc. Start with "This page in a nutshell: If you are paid in any way for contributing to Wikipedia, you must disclose it." I'll drop my email address here in a second (you may need to enable email access in your user profile). I tried contacting the Commissioner's webpage yesterday but there is no "contact us" information there. You might want to talk to Gonzalez before responding. A response by Saturday noon is fine by me. If you don't respond though, you might miss a chance to tell your story before others get to tell their stories. email me here. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Smallbones(smalltalk)
Sorry for jumping in Smallbones but you and I interpret WP:PAID differently. If Jane, an employee of Acme Widgets, is told to edit Wikipedia, they have a conflict of interest but they are not a paid editor. On the other hand, if Jane works for Uneeda Public Relations who handle PR for Acme Widgets, then she is a paid editor if she edits Wikipedia as part of her PR effort. I believe that is the intent of the part about Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we disagree. If Jane is told by her employer to edit Wikipedia, she is a paid editor if she actually edits their article. She is being compensated by receiving her regular pay for that time and not being fired.
See the In a nutshell above and now the first 2 paragraphs
"A paid contribution is one that involves contributing to Wikipedia in exchange for money or other inducements. It includes adding or removing content from any page, including articles and talk pages."
"If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship."
That's as clear as can be. There are no qualifications, if, ands, or buts. And that is very intentionally written that way. There is no room in there for wiki-lawyering - which all paid editors love to do if it helps them get their pay.
What's appearing to confuse you is in "Additional notes on who must disclose" which was added for Wikilawyers - e.g. people who claim that just because they spend their days working for Acme publicizing xwidgets doesn't mean that they can't go home at night, when they are off the clock and publicize xwidgets on Wiki. Thus we made a point of specifically shutting that stupid argument down. "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia" There are some pretty specific things like that on WP:PAID (but usually they are prefaced by phrases like "including, but not limited to"). The clear meaning of the text, and of the terms of use text, is that anyone who edits Wikipedia for pay has to declare. Think of the specifics as extra restrictions beyond the general requirement to declare. Smallbones(smalltalk)
From the WP:PAID page, it reads Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia.
How I read this is that a salaried communication director of a school district who edits the page about one of their schools or speaks to the media is getting paid "for editing Wikipedia" or "speaking with media" because these are part of their job. It doesn't matter even if the editing was done at 3AM while stuck inside an elevator on vacation while waiting for someone to let them out. In that case, the client and employer are both the school district.
If the person making the edit works for a communication company hired by the school district, then the employer would be the communication company, and the client would be the school district.
Gaming the system by being paid hourly and clocking in/clocking out specifically to edit Wikipedia doesn't change it.
The consultant that explained how to engage doesn't need to be revealed, however the employer of record of the person making the edit should be disclosed. The way it was written in the original Oregonian article suggested that the edits were being done by a third party contractor. Graywalls (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edits on this talk page by Gonzalez's employee are enough to require a proper paid editing declaration, which just means something like: "I am employed by Gonzalez, and am paid by (specific entity), and am affiliated with "WhiteHatWiki". Why should WhiteHatWiki be declared as an affiliation? Well, they advised the paid editor and received a bunch of money for it. The formatting, wording, general approach, etc. are all typical of WhiteHatWiki projects. And WHW advised the paid editor not to declare that they were paid (!). That's clearly a relevant affiliation. Smallbones(smalltalk)12:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's covered in WP:RS about a politician and I believe it's important to place some coverage. I'm not sure if WP:NOTNEWS would be a cause to exclude it. I think that NOTNEWS is intended to exclude things like blow-by-blow details about every day details of celebrities, store location opening, closing and like. Graywalls (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's important, though exiting to the Wikipedians. My view is that adding it at this point doesn't rhyme with "breaking news should not be emphasized" but reasonable people may disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does feel like navel gazing to me as well, but on the other hand it was covered in a dedicated article by all of the largest news publications in Portland. There is a lot more material on more substantial topics so it doesn't hurt to keep it IMO. Steven Walling • talk16:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia is itself a highly notable topic, the "navel gazing" essay should be used sparingly. I do not think that essay is applicable to this situation. Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside what “last previous” means, as the edit request says, “specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it”. tedder (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it interesting that not a thing was said outside of Wikipedia when somebody blatantly surreptitiously whitewashedJo Ann Hardesty page of unflattering, but properly sourced contents? That's when PBOT was resided under Hardesty's portfolio. Take a look at contributions and talk page of Dove3579 (talk·contribs), an account which has edited on Zalul Environmental Association, Arava Power, and PBOT. Where those overlap off-wiki strongly suggests that was PR reputation management editing done on public expenses too. As far as Wiki policies are concerned, there was no disclosure of any sort, so that was far worse, in my opinion. Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of this to the topic at hand, exactly? If you’re concerned about another article, its talk page would be the proper forum to air those concerns. Trexiane (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the latest sources available, what was in place about campaign investigation being insufficient evidence is outdated. I trimmed it out for the time being. I'm planning on putting in the updated version using the latest sources by this coming Monday. Graywalls (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I backtrack a bit. After seeing MOS:LEAD, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies., most prominent controversy should have a place in lede. Graywalls (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done, his father's ethnicity is already mentioned in the personal life section. Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done, the platform phrasing seemed like too-close paraphrasing of the source, so I have added just the information that he was running for mayor. Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
