Talk:Max Rose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request for Edit

The Congressman's father is not a CUNY Professor, he is a medical laboratory executive. Please update his family Early Life and Education section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shouthshoredem (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification--I've updated it. Philepitta (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability concerns

Barkeep49 requested this article be placed in the NPP review queue because he had questions about notability. As a candidate for but not yet elected to the U.S. House, he would not normally qualify under NPOL, but there has been some national-level attention to his candidacy that may be seen as pushing him past the threshold. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Rose is a highly competitive major-party candidate in an election for national office. He has raised more than $3.4 million for his candidacy, and at present, is predicted to receive more than 45% of the vote. See FiveThirtyEight.com's analysis of this district. I'm expecting this page to be well viewed before the November 6 election by people who want more information about how to vote. La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverting page

La comadreja by my counts you've just violated WP:3RR. The page should not be restored pending deletion review - if the XfD is overturned, then the page can be restored. Please revert your most recent restore or I'll look to have the redirect restored and page protected administratively. SportingFlyer talk 21:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi SportingFlyer, where do you see that the page should not be restored pending deletion review? The redirect template specifically says to convert the redirect into an article on the topic if there's notability. Rose abundantly meets general notability guidelines, with sustained significant coverage in major sources (multiple NY Times articles, article in the Guardian, article in Times of Israel, and many more). Although there's major coverage of Rose stretching back some time, a significant proportion of the coverage cited in the article is recent, so he's become substantially more notable since the deletion discussion.. Philepitta (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the article per the instructions on the redirect template. Philepitta (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary undeletion, you can request an admin to restore the article. This was a bit different since it was a redirect, but the consensus was achieved about six weeks ago, so you need to have a new discussion in order to see if the article should be restored - it shouldn't be done unilaterally. SportingFlyer talk 21:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary undeletion just says that an admin can restore the article so that editors can see it for deletion review even if it's been completely deleted. Since the page was redirected, we don't need admin intervention for this. Based on the info on the page you linked, the article should stay visible while it's being discussed so that editors can view it while they're considering whether or not it should be kept. Philepitta (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering we just came to a consensus six weeks ago the page should be redirected, the redirect should still be considered and completed by an administrator. There's no need to restore the redirect at the moment, we can wait for the DRV process to play out. SportingFlyer talk 21:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that there's been significant additional coverage of Rose since the previous discussion, we need the article so that editors commenting on the deletion review can see it. They can't easily comment on the review if the article is invisible. That's why admins temporarily undelete articles in this sort of situation. Philepitta (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

DRV doesn't always need the article to comment on. DRV looks to see whether the XfD was closed properly. It is not a new deletion discussion but rather a review of the old discussion. SportingFlyer talk 21:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on the page you linked, it looks to me like articles under deletion review are routinely restored by admins so they are generally visible. But apart from that issue, this is a different article from the one previously deleted, the subject has significant additional notability since the previous discussion, and editors participating in the review should be able to see the article. Philepitta (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would consider it routine. Plus, while assuming good faith, but based on the edit summaries of restoring the article from the redirect, adding the article back to the site seems to be as much making sure the page is on the site as much as it is resolving a genuine dispute. SportingFlyer talk 22:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We need to let the deletion review play out. The last community consensus we have for the page is to redirect--we should leave it that way unless or until a different consensus emerges. But persistently un-redirecting this page absent consensus isn't the way to do it. Marquardtika (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The deletion review template explicitly says: "Do not blank or redirect this page, or remove this notice from the page". Marquardtika, please undo your redirect. Philepitta (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we can remove the review template entirely as it per DRV the template is only for pages "previously kept," which this article was not. SportingFlyer talk 00:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The template should not be removed while the discussion is in progress. Philepitta (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you say that? It's on a redirect page, which I believe is a problem with the redirect. There was no consensus to keep the page, so the page shouldn't have a template - you wouldn't necessarily put a template on a deleted page, for instance. SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just looked up the page you cited; among the reasons for deletion review is "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page," which is true for this article given the significant new news coverage. A deletion review is totally appropriate, and according to the template, the page should obviously be kept while the review is in progress. I'm really not seeing the policy that you're referring to. Philepitta (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirect doesn't go where it should

Right now, the page looks like a couple templates and some Wikipedia markup rather than actually going to the redirect link. Editing is blocked, but this needs fixing. La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe the template is preventing the redirect and needs to be removed? In any case, the page should fixed so it properly redirects. Philepitta (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Alpha3031: @Marquardtika: @SportingFlyer:. I assume that fixing the redirect so that it goes where it should is a noncontroversial change, since I believe that's the state of the article you were trying to attain; is that correct? Philepitta (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but yes, I'm fine with this. I think the template needs to be removed to make it work. SportingFlyer talk 04:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This might be intended behavior, like in the RfD template, to direct people to the discussion if they wish to participate, but I think removing the DRV template is appropriate given that the few DRVs on redirects I've found in the past few months all went without the template, as far as I can tell. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Already done It seems like with this edit the redirect issue has been fixed and is now going to the correct target. I'm not an admin but since the page is redirecting to the correct target I'm gonna close this request for now but reopen it if I'm mistaken. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Excessive citing

Do single sentences of this article (especially related to his service) really need 2, 3, or even 4 sources to prove. They all pretty much have the same information generally and using four different sources to prove that Rose went to Afghanistan (as it currently is in the lead)) is a bit much. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-creation

I was asked to comment on this article's re-creation. I fully support it. FWIW, I supported another candidate in the 2018 primary. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

• Max Rose (politician) → Max Rose
• Max Rose → Max Rose (disambiguation)

– WP:TWODABS ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: the second nomination above was added to fix malformed request. If this nomination succeeds, then the disambiguation page can be speedily deleted to make room for the first page move under CSD G6 or CSD G14. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Pageviews indicate a clear primary topic. Station1 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The request is not malformed (@Paine Ellsworth: please revert yourself) just not fully explained. Move Max Rose (politician) over Max Rose. A disambiguation page is not required. Put a hatnote at the base name to the other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Was there something in my note above that was unclear? The bot saw this as a malformed request because the target was a dab page that was not earmarked to be moved. As long as it's understood that the dab page will be deleted to make room for the "Max Rose (politician)" rename, then there is no harm done, isn't that correct? BTW, Shhhnotsoloud, congrats on your recent 10-years on Wikipedia! You too Justin on your upcoming 15th yearday! PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  Paine Ellsworth, Thanks. I've actually been editing longer (starting from IPs) and reading even longer than that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Me too, Justin. As an IP I just reverted vandalism and did some minor sp. and gram. fixes mostly. Was a couple of years before I registered and really got into it. Wish you and yours the best! PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: thank you! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

My thought was the same as Shhhnotsoloud. There was nothing wrong with request as written. If a bot thinks the request was malformed, the bot should be fixed or ignored. Just to be clear, I also support the first move but oppose the second. Station1 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

And rightly so. My thinking was that my note made it clear that either an admin could close this by deleting the dab page to make way for the page move, or a non-admin could close it by moving "Max Rose → Max Rose (disambiguation)" to make room for the first move, and then placing {{db-g6}} or {{db-g14}} on the dab page for speedy deletion. Works both ways. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mass deletion

An editor mass deleted material here. Claiming "mostly" puffery. It's not. Simply untrue. All objective, factual, tempered, and RS supported. --2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Rose is a Democrat who describes himself as a centrist populist, willing to criticize his own party and work with Republicans for civic good reads like campaign promotional material. Content about his distant relatives is not relevant to his biography. KidAd talk 00:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

OK - while we are not describing him but rather how he describes himself, which is appropriate, I'm sure we can find someone else describing him. And use that to replace it, which is arguably of even greater moment. The fact that he is a Democrat is unassailable. When RSs - and here, many - describe distant relatives, it is not for a WP editor to substitute his subjective view as to what is relevant. As with many politicians (Kerry, Obama, Albright, etc) distant relative info that is in RSs is appropriate to reflect at wp. We follow the RSs. We don't impose our subjective views. --2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You've again made a mass deletion of factual RS-supported material. It is all RS-supported. And factual. Your assertion that it is "campaign material" is completely baseless. Obviously. If you delete factual material again, I will ask an admin to review your edits. 2604:2000:E010:1100:49E7:A2AA:BFE8:5813 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted page protection

A few moments ago I added one week of page protection. This was done in error and I have undone it. On closer review I believe there is a content dispute. Any editor should feel free to register a fresh WP:RFPP for review by a new admin if they disagree. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford: Please review the above-noted deletion of RS-supported material by another editor. As an admin, please either given an opinion as to whether it was appropriate, or direct me to where an admin can take action if an editor makes unwarranted deletions of RS-supported material, on baseless accusations. I would like to go somewhere where the process is expedient, and where an admin can be sensitive to a possible pattern of such editing and take appropriate measures or give appropriate guidance. Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:49E7:A2AA:BFE8:5813 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all you've done so far is insert WP:PUFFERY like "Rose, who is not any taller than 5 feet 7 inches, said he has an ace up his sleeve: "New York City has a long tradition of electing short mayors during times of crises, [pointing to Mike Bloomberg and Fiorello La Guardia]. History is on my side," irrelevant WP:TRIVIA about distant relatives, and poor language like the meandering run-on "In 2012–13, he was a 26-year-old first lieutenant platoon leader leading fighting in the War in Afghanistan as he led a combat outpost of 30 American soldiers, when he suffered wounds to his face and right knee and was knocked unconscious in 2013 after his Stryker armored fighting vehicle hit an improvised explosive device in northern Kandahar Province. You have also used various IPs to disrupt this page and Wiki-hound me at Tim Keller (politician). How exactly do you think an admin can help you in this situation? KidAd talk 02:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Anyone can review your mass deletions and decide for themselves.

As to using various IPs - not everyone is connected to a service that gives them a static IP address. Such is the case with me, and I am not as you accuse me "socking" by any means. I simply have a non-static IP address that is not my doing at all.

Nor am I "hounding" you. As I said (which you deleted) on the talk page where we were already having a separate conversation: "I haven't looked into the details of this dispute. But a couple of thoughts. 1) If the editor makes a spelling or nomenclature error, we would be best served by fixing it, rather than deleting it, given the collaborative goal here, and Holiday spirit and all that. And playing for a professional team is certainly notable. 2) If RSs are reporting something it is likely of moment, certainly if more than one are, and we follow the RSs - not the personal subjective views of any one editor, which is a point I have mentioned before. I don't know though - not having checked - if we have more than one RS on this .. just one RS, especially a narrow music RS, might be less persuasive, but multiple RSs would convince me. BTW, I came to this page to see if Kid was running into the same issue on deletions as I have just run into with me - just for full disclosure.".

As to your aggressive accusation that I wikihounded you then to the page in question, that is likewise manifestly not true. You wrote to me: "feel free to take your concerns to the talk page".

Certainly not wikihounding - though that accusation and your socking accusation are in keeping with your "stop adding campaign material" accusations. Simply baseless. And apparently so to anyone looking at them.

And if a sentence is a run-on, my thought is the same as my advice to you when you deleted an edit of that other editor because he got a term wrong. We would be best served by fixing it. Rather than deleting it (asserting falsely that it is "campaign material"). Given the collaborative goal here, and Holiday spirit and all that.2604:2000:E010:1100:49E7:A2AA:BFE8:5813 (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is this is nothing more than a routine content disagreement. If you feel 1RR/3RR has been breached, you can take it to WP:AN3. Otherwise, you can also seek intervention at WP:ANI. I don't think you'll find much more satisfaction there than I've given, however, as a review of the editor interaction analyzer [1] would incline me to believe KidAd has a pretty cut-and-dry case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING were he to pursue it. My advice would be to (a) register an account instead of using an IP (that's not required, but makes communication easier), (b) post your proposed changes here before reintroducing them for discussion and see if a consensus about their addition can be reached, (c) exercise diligence in what articles you edit for a bit since your current editing pattern is consistent with what I, and I think others, would characterize as hounding. Chetsford (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. I'm confused thought. I had read what hounding is before I wrote the above, and thought it apparent, but perhaps I was unclear, so I will try to be clearer on why there was no hounding. The section you point to states "Hounding ... is the singling out of one ... editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor... Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial ... purposes... Correct use of an editor's history includes ... correcting related problems on multiple articles."

To be clear, there is zero evidence of me joining discussions on multiple pages. I joined one discussion. On one page. His talk page. It simply is therefore not hounding. I don't understand how one could be of the view that one page = multiple.

Further, I stated clearly in my post that I was there - on the one talk page discussion - that "BTW, I came to this page to see if Kid was running into the same issue on deletions as I have just run into with me - just for full disclosure." (Which he was.) That is contemplated by the hounding rule. Which says that correct use of an editor's history (although I never, ever even looked at his history, even to this date) includes correcting related problems on multiple articles. That's what I stated I was there for, on that one talk page of the editor I was in discussion with, and that is contemplated by the rule as well.

Finally, I wasn't "confronting" him at all. I stated on one issue that where another editor makes a mistake, we would be best served by fixing it, rather than deleting it, given the collaborative goal here, and Holiday spirit and all that. Surely that is not "confronting" an editor. And the second point was exactly what is contemplated above, addressing the issue of the deletion of RS-supported material - and again, if you read my comment, I am not confronting him there either, but offering my view, and saying that in this case he may (or may not) be right.

Please take another look.

I just took a look at that tool you mentioned. Yes - it appears that he also edits (as w Max Rose) Staten Island politicians. Two I edited he also edited. None of our edits other than Max Rose have anything to do with each other. And all of my edits to the others were simple clean-up -- you have to take a look at them. As far as him also editing the new Covid strain that is top news in the papers today, I had no idea (as I had no idea of the others) that he did, and again - zero overlap in our editing, zero overlap -- they have nothing to do with each other. And frankly, I had no idea he even edited those articles, though with the front page Covid case that makes sense, and with him also having an interest in Staten Island politicians that makes sense - but you really, really, have to see the edits to see there is no there there. And one more - yes, I left workd on the talk page of Metalhead, because when I left a comment in the discussion w/Metalhead he deleted it, so I let Metalhead know what my comment had been - that is surely appropriate. I added nothing more. That's not wikihouding. So these four examples you point to are certainly not in the least wikihounding.

What also makes the belief that the wikhounding he asserted had any basis at all was that his example was my editing a page that - as I pointed out - he invited me to edit.

Also, please take a look at all of the decidedly appropriate material that he deleted in his mass delete, that no person could with a straight face call campaign material - yet he does, and on the basis of that baseless assertion, deletes it. Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:49E7:A2AA:BFE8:5813 (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

IP editor - I'm not sure why you're appealing to me as there's really nothing I can do. Administrators are not moderators. The community self-polices content disputes through the WP:RFC process, which I've previously suggested to you. If you feel your additions are being unduly removed you can open an RfC, there will be a discussion for the next 30 days or so, and a consensus will eventually come out of it as to the disposition of those additions. You've previously indicated to me that this isn't a fast enough process, however, Wikipedia doesn't have a WP:DEADLINE. If you feel the dissemination of the content you'd like to add is of such great urgency that it can brook no delay, you may want to explore starting a Fandom / Wikia site for Max Rose instead. Chetsford (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The more the IP writes, the less I understand what they are trying to communicate, so I will be as clear as possible. The IP has consistently added material to Max Rose that violates WP:TRIVIA and WP:PUFFERY using two IP addresses. Because their IP is based in New York City and they were adding glowing material about the candidate, I briefly entertained the idea that this individual may be working for a campaign organization or political firm associated with the candidate. After I reverted their edits here, the IP decided to leave a message on my talk page about an issue they were not involved in. The IP doubled down on their meddling on Talk:Tim Keller (politician) and has since followed me to multiple pages. The IP later returned to add more problematic content to this page. In above comments, the IP has chosen to be either righteously indignant or incredulous about the issues I have raised about their content, but I have explained it multiple times. Competence is required, and A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. KidAd talk 18:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Date assumed office conflict

On the right bar beneath his portrait, it says that as Incumbent, he assumed office on January 20th, 2021. However, it says that Nicole Malliotakis defeated him just below that. Requesting clarification and update on this page as I don't trust myself to do it right and follow Wikia guidelines. 68.198.213.62 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding, Rose is serving as the Special Assistant to the United States Secretary of Defense for COVID-19 in the Biden administration, that's why he's labeled as 'Incumbent' under his portrait. The information in his infobox regarding his time in the House is up to date and reflects that Malliotakis defeated him in November and succeeded him in January. Hope this clarifies anything that was uncertain. Scoutguy138 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay! Thank you, yes, I misread the sidebar. 68.198.213.62 (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)