Talk:Mike Gatto

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.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This Wikipedia entry seems to be overly differential to Mike Gatto, with not a single negative reference to recent controversies, including protests by KFI at his office for his complaint that he would not be paid as a result of submitting a budget that was not balanced. Also, it includes items that are not very relevant, such as the fact that he has showed up to work more often than most legislators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralMSG (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the label as "neutrality disputed" seems to be a rather naked attempt to create controversy on a well-sourced web site. This user (GeneralMSG) has edited no pages except this one, and appears rather uneducated. (Note spelling of "deferential" as "differential." A legislator's vote record is absolutely relevant. The number of votes a legislator made or missed is central to our constitutional system of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrconstgovt (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current neutrality tag was placed by a different editor, not GeneralMSG. The snide personal dig by Ctrconstgovt serves no constructive purpose; as well, an editor with a very limited history and narrow focus on Wikipedia would do well not to cast aspersions at others. The article's neutrality is being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit miffed that you gave someone else credit for posting the template, but more so that you undid revision 559805489 by User:David in DC for no apparent reason when he was merely copyediting for style. Please refrain from taking unconstructive actions. K.Bog 23:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is non-free

The photo we're using here is in violation of copyright. The justification given is "official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin." But that only applies to works of the US Federal Government, not to works of the States. And the web site the photo came from has a copyright notice at the bottom: "© Copyright 2013 California State Assembly Democratic Caucus, All Rights Reserved." I would nominate for deletion, but the photo is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, and I don't know how to do that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State employees of FLA and CA have the same rule as federal. All photos while taken on duty are public domain. You could put it up for deletion review at commons to determine who actually took the picture. They may try to claim copyright but that doesn't override the state public domain law.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please share how you know this photo is the "work of a State of California employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties"? You've implied you don't know who took the photo, so how can you know that person is a State of California employee? And can you fix the copyright info on the photo page? The source is given as http://asm.ca.gov/gatto, but there is no such page, it redirects to http://www.asmdc.org/members/a43/ . That page has a copyright notice on it, and says "all rights reserved." Furthermore, the photo does not appear on that page, so it can't be the source for this photo. Sorry to be a stickler, but we take copyright violations seriously here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to email him but his site only takes email from his district. If you look at the EXIF data you will see that is was provided by the subject. You could take it to deletion review at commons and see if someone local wants to email him and confirm that is PD. I may BS an address so I can email him if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the photo. Where did you get it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take the photo out until we find out where it came from and how it's licensed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nominate a file for deletion at Commons, there's a link in the sidebar that's labeled "Nominate for deletion".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Mike Gatto and the Chief Clerk of California State Assembly to confirm that it is PD. I also emailed the Democratic National Committee to have all their members check their photos. I will email the Republican National Committee next. Many of them are probably not aware that they have no photos, photos in question, or lame ones. Hopefully they can create image hosting sites with either PD or CC-by tags for them. This way we won't have to search all over the net, cause more backlog at OTRS, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're being so evasive about the source of the image. It does seem likely this is an official portrait and in the public domain. But if that's the case, why won't you say where it's from? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original is public domain from the state website which makes all versions public domain. It was low resolution. I just googled higher resolution ones by searching for similar images. I can't remember which one I uploaded.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for campaigning

Please note that removal of campaign fluff is not only not vandalism, it is called for by policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a lot of work has done in recent days to address the WP:BALANCE issues. NickCT (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the history here, it looks like both User:Ctrconstgovt and User:Grammsl are WP:SPAs heavily involved in putting questionable material into the article. No accusations here. Just an observation. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt about that. Also, the few mainspace edits they have which are not in Gatto's article are about other topics related to the state government and southern California area. Highly possible COI. K.Bog 05:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an explanation as to why linking to the California Homemade Food Act is considered inappropriate in this article. Since Mike Gatto authored this signed bill, which has received significant coverage from regional and national news sources, I believe it warrants a mention in his biography. Please also note that the article on the California Homemade Food Act has been orphaned again because of the changes made to Gatto's biography, and I have no idea where else to link to the CHFA. Altamel (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a trimmed version back in but where's the significant news coverage from national news sources? All I saw was a CSM article which was a reprint of a specialized online magazine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need "significant" coverage; it simply needs to meet the ordinary BLP sourcing requirements for any random fact in an article. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deleting relevant sourced material as "fluff" or "unimportant". That is an assertion based on a value judgment of one person. The editor who added the material is another. Of the two, I would rather go with the guy who takes the time to build an article than the one who wants to tear it down. I recognize this article looks way too nice - any politician is sure to have some people who disagree with his ideas, and that is where to balance it, by further additions. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I noticed that one organization had lobbied against the bill, arguing that it eroded the right of cities to govern hours of operation, advertising, etc. in residential areas. [1] (This source opposes cacities - oddly, though the group is termed "lobbyists", the only copy of their letter online seems to be with this opposing organization...) Wnt (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political endorsements from bloggers [2] don't belong in a BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lock?

Due to the unfolding tragedy involving his father's murder, maybe it's time to lock the page for now?174.126.239.232 (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mike Gatto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100517091959/http://mikegatto4assembly.com/Site/Mike_Gatto_for_Assembly.html to http://www.mikegatto4assembly.com/Site/Mike_Gatto_for_Assembly.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mike Gatto. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]