Talk:Rocky De La Fuente/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expansion Comment

I have edited this page because I wanted to create an article for a person who is a political figure and had bright chances of getting the article clear the admin review. I started creating the article for "Rocky" under the name Roque De La Fuente while 'Firedancethroughthenight' started creating it under the name Rocky De La Fuente. It was just a coinsidence that we both started simultaneously with different names. Once the article was rejected I was waiting and monitering if I could find some new links that could establish his notability. Till then he went live with a different name. I wanted to expand it but when I saw the deletion discussion I stopped and waited for the deletion discission to reach some conclusion. Once the discussion got closed and it was declared that Rocky is notable and deserves a start class I thought of merging both the articles and expanding. I updated only the information which could be cited with the same links used in the start class. I am a newcomer and learning things at a faster rate. If editors find something to be edited as per the Wikipedia guidelines, they may edit and make the changes in the content I have added.Thanks Claire Cousin (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Who raised him?

He was born to his parents, but not raised by his parents? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in the article that says that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources column

I don't have time at the moment to figure out how to best dismantle and remantle the election results table, but there shouldn't be a column for "Sources"; those links should be references on the information, and end up in the reference list. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lists of who he beat

There have been repeated attempts to insert into the article lists of what candidates he beat in various races. This is both generally trivial and fails Wikipedia's goal of neutral point of view, attempting to spin his losses as small victories. These efforts have been undone by multiple editors, and should remain undone. Before attempting reinsertion, please try to gain consensus for such here on the talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Folks seeking to understand the edit history of this page should see the results of this sockpuppet investigation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Orlando residence

Multiple attempts have been made to add a claim that the subject's residence is in Orlando, Florida. We do not have reliable sources stating this, our sources indicate a San Diego residence... and this is not a trivial matter. Given that he is running for Senate in Florida, the question of where he resides, how long he has resided there, and how genuine is that residence may come into play, as it raises the question whether he is a parachute candidate. Unsourced claims of residency should be kept out of the article until there is a reliable source. (Here is an interview from earlier this month where he speaking as if San Diego is his base: "In San Diego, we have fires almost once every three years because there’s so much dry area.") (Oh, and here is an RS throwing shade on the Florida residency claim, referring to him as a "San Diego businessman" and responding to his claim of Florida as a residence with noting he used SD as his hom base when filing his campaign paperwork.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

And also, even if he is living in Orlando, noting the location he's been living in for a portion of a year would not generally be introduction material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing warring

A new editor, Flowerrose2, has been inserting a lot of problematic edits - adding promotional text, blowing up maps, using headers that do not match their content, and removing sourced content. Myself and other editors have undone some of her work, but now an IP is reinserting the same bad material, following my having left a message at User talk:Flowerrose2. This edits should not be allowed to stand unless the editor can first achieve consensus here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have now tagged the page as having POV problems, as the material introduced by @Flowerrose2: and the IP reeks of promotionalism. "is living proof that the American Dream can be achieved by those who are inspired to pursue it"? "was born an entrepreneur"? This is an encyclopedia, such love notes are entirely inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This Article has now been sorted out with admin datguy thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerrose2 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it has not been "sorted out"; he undid some of the damage you've done to the article, as did Fuorto, but not all. (And no, datguy is not an "admin".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The main problem areas having been removed, I have removed the tags. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuits

I just removed an unsourced claim of lawsuits pending; does anyone have a good source that covers them? The map shows about 20 states covered by this claim. I can find reliable or -ish sources on a few individual states - Texas, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alabama (apparently ended), California, but that's all I'm finding. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems the Alabama case is not yet settled. Other lawsuits are Georgia, Virginia, and Washington. I replaced the map, again. Bcharles (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated problems

Editor @Mickey109: has repeatedly tried to:

• Delete the percentages column from the voting result, without stated reason
• Add the name "Rocky" throughout the article, despite the guideline WP:SURNAME, which calls on us just to use the last name in most instances.
• Insert a photograph that has campaign branding on it, despite our WP:WATERMARK guideline.

These edits have been undone by multiple editors, only to be redone. I ask that the editor read up on our guideline on what to do if someone undoes your edit, then comes to the talk page and makes the arguments, and only reattempts their alterations once they've achieved consensus, which they clearly do not yet have. In addition, they may want to consider whether they are sufficiently competent in English to actually edit here. The edit summaries in Spanish are not appropriate, and there seems to be some use of a translation tool to get English, which is coming out awkward. (At least, I assume that's the reason for an edit summary that refers to my "vasectomy reversal".) By the way, despite their assumption, I am not an "administrator", which in Wikipedia terms is a specific role with specific powers that I do not have. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

map colors

I don't know much about working with maps, but wouldn't it make sense to use the same color scheme for both maps on the page, since they're representing the same kinds of data and might suit comparison? (Of the two, the bluish color scheme of the second map is easier for me to look at than the rather lurid green of the first, but I don't know how accessibility standards applies to either scheme.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I revised the primary map using the colors that it was created with. It would make sense to use a blue scheme, but i would not use the same colors as the general election map to keep them distinct. I won't spend time changing it, but it is easy to change the "fill" color for each state using hex values for red-green-blue (e.g. #0000FF = blue, #800080 = deep purple, #CCCC33 = soft yellow). Ask if you need additional details for how to open the svg file with a text editor, test the revisions with your browser, or to upload the new version to the wikimedia page for the image. Bcharles (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rocky De La Fuente

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rocky De La Fuente's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AZ":

• From List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016: Wagner, J. and A. Gearan. The Washington Post 2014-11-08.
• From United States presidential election, 2016: "2016 Election Information". azsos.gov. Arizona Secretary of State. Retrieved September 28, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

L

Focus of university studies

The article contains this sentence at the end of the "Early Life" section:

As a youth, De La Fuente attended Saint Catherine's Military Academy in Anaheim, California and then earned a B.S in Physics and in Mathematics at Anahuac University which is located just outside Mexico City. The focus of his studies at Anahuac was Business Administration.

Since the source given is in Spanish, I can't use it to determine whether he studied Math and Physics, or Business Administration. Which was it? siafu (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The source uses the word "estudiando" which means "studied" business. In the next sentence the source says he holds a BS in Physics and Mathematics.

I'm assuming that means he just took a few business classes in college. The source doesn't use the word focus so it could be just one class. 2605:E000:1C00:80E2:F4F9:5851:2F2:31E1 (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Watching the Delaware filing

It is not likely to be announced anywhere if Rocky doesn't file in Delaware, but we may want to change our discussion in the 2018 Senate section if he doesn't. Deadline for filing is July 10. If he files (and if I'm following the way the Delaware site works correctly), he will show up on thia page of general election candidates if he is the only one who files as a Republican (or whatever party he is at the moment), and on this page for the primary if he has competition within the party. (Thus far, no Republicans are listed. Not a big surprise, no R has won in the last 8 Delaware Senatorial elections, and this is not feeling like the year that the state suddenly goes red.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Summary grid

As each state's primary comes down, this page is just going to be a mess of charts, only a fraction of which will be actual information about Rocky, if we keep running the full results. I recommend that for the 2018 Senate primaries, we create a single chart, and for each state list the primary date, whether it was a Republican or Open primary, number of candidates, place Rocky came in, percentage of vote Rocky got, and the name of the winner (or winners, in the case of an open primary.) We can include a link to the page specifically about the election. Anyone else have feelings or advice on this? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Description as "perennial candidate"

Someone seems to be very motivated to describe De La Fuente as a "perennial candidate" in repeated edits. De La Fuente has only sought elected office during 2 election cycles, and it was my understand that a perennial candidate is generally someone who runs repeatedly over many years or even decades. All of the examples on the perennial candidates article fit that particular mold, while De La Fuente does not. Isn't frequent or repeated a better and less subjective term? --Mediafocus (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless we have a reliable third-party source for applying this term to him, we should not be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's already sourced. Did you check? JesseRafe (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Literally in the first sentence of the article for the disputed term: "A perennial candidate is a political candidate who frequently runs for an elected office but seldom wins." -- Has he not run for almost twenty positions and won zero? Is that not frequently running? Is that not seldom winning? He's objectively an exemplar of a perennial candidate -- it's not a subjective smear. Further, "frequent candidate" or "repeated candidate" are not common terms, and thus not as informative, and there's no articles for "frequent" or "repeated" candidate that would not also neatly describe a perennial one, so it's a distinction without a difference. Aside from which, it seems that you have a non-neutral interest in making him sound better, or at least insist that the lede says he is "wealthy". JesseRafe (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Then I'm fine. (Sorry, I had somehow pulled up a source from a different item in the article at first; I'm having that kind of a day.) Yes, RSes are calling it, we should go with it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nat and Jesse; "perennial candidate" is an informative phrase used by multiple high-quality sources to describe the article subject. It should remain. Neutrality^talk 00:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Joewendt (talk · contribs) has attempted to edit-war out of the article the statement that Rocky is a "perennial candidate", despite that descriptor being backed by multiple reliable sources (and that was before his most recent candidacy. An additional candidacy certainly doesn't reduce the applicability of the term, and reliable sources continue to use it - here's the L.A Times from earlier this year.) I am restoring the content, and it should not be removed again without finding additional consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Corrected the named user, and agree with the restoration. Multiple users (or "multiple") have been trying to remove this apt descriptor for years. JesseRafe (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on the dictionary definition of perennial candidate, De La Fuente does not meet the criteria. Per the definition, A perennial candidate is a political candidate who frequently runs for an elected office but seldom wins. Now, last I checked, he has only ran for office in 3 election cycles so far. Certainly not a true perennial such as Harold Stassen or Paulsen. The criteria used to describe De La Fuente as Perennial candidate, Ron Paul must be labeled a Perennial Presidential candidate. Additionally, Ralph Nader has not been described as a Perennial candidate, even thought he has ran in multiple election cycles. Additionally, other notable perennial candidates such as Otto Guevara are not listed as a perennial candidate on their pageJoewendt (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

First, you are undercounting. He has run for elections in 2016, 2017, 2018, and is already running for 2020. Additionally, by counting election cycles, you are not counting elections themselves - in 2016 he ran for the Dem nomination, and on losing that, jumped over to the Reform Party contest. As to whether "perennial presidential candidate" could be applied to Ron Paul, that's certainly a possibility; NPR applies it to him. You'd have trouble sticking the term without "presidential" in it, as he frequently won elections to other offices. As to whether it's a descriptor that should be used on those other pages, that's really more a matter for the editors of those other pages. As for whether he seldom wins, he ran for two government offices in 2016, one in 2017, and nine in 2018, and is 0-for-12; the only position one could reasonable have described him as winning so far is that Reform nomination. We have a bunch of strong, reliable sources noting that he is a perennial candidate, and reliable sources are what we rely on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Based on the dictionary definition of a perennial candidate AND the facts that exist in the world, De La Fuente is the paragon exemplar of the term. Reliable sources refer to him as such, which is more than enough to employ the term. Ron Paul won dozens of elections and lost only a handful, what are you talking about? Nader ran four times in four decades -- how is that "perennial"? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, but it's not even the case that it exists here, you're grasping at straws. De La Fuente runs for every office that he can (and many that he can't, evidently). He ran for at least 13 offices in the past five years, and, again, reliable sources use the term and he fits the plain reading of the definition, so it's included. That's it. Also, please disclose your COI with editing this subject matter. You should request any edits related to De La Fuente on the talk page instead of editing the page (or any related page) yourself, further details on your talk page. While you're at it, you should also delete your legal threats, lest you be blocked for them. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

And, looking at the Otto Guevara page, that's not a page that one should hold up as an exemplar for anything. Almost entirely unsourced and with some POV writing, it's in need of a major overhaul. However, assuming its descriptor is true and full, it would be hard to place the generic "perennial candidate" tag on him, as he has stood for office 6 times and won twice, which is not "seldom". --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ICE detention center

Not sure that this merits inclusion, but I will note the coverage: Rocky sold land on which now sits an ICE detention center. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Tampa Bay source

@Marnie Hawes: recently added "In Florida, De La Fuente was the only challenger to Governor Rick Scott's in the Republican primary. He was in second place at 21 percent behind the front-runner, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein." This was sourced to a Florida paper. The first sentence is fine (except for the unneeded 's after Scott's name.) The second sentence has multiple problems. First off, it makes it sound like Rocky was running against Feinstein in Florida, which was clearly not the case; that second sentence is about the California primary. The next problem is that the "was in second place" was not a general truth, it was one poll, and an outlier at that (see the primary poll list here)... and was in fact being misreported by the Tampa Bay paper. As can be seen in the poll data, as archived several days before this Tampa Bay article ran, the polling included a "follow up recontact survey" of the same voters, and there Rocky came in at 4%... still double what the actual vote was on the day that the article ran, when Rocky got 2% and came in 9th, but much more in lines with other polls. That's why I'll be striking the second sentence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I ended up having to rework the OK sentence as well, as it didn't state the results and was then followed by an "he also lost in ... Florida". --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

About Qualifying on New Hampshire and Arkansas

Hi, Natgertler,

For now, I have these references about qualifying on New Hampshire: https://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589992400 and Arkansas: https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/nov/09/president-filings-highlight-day-5-20191/ Some other sources on qualifying on other states including New Hampshire are:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-10-31/first-in-race-gop-challenger-to-trump-qualifies-to-appear-on-the-ballot-in-first-in-nation-primary-state-new-hamps
• https://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2019-10/48046790-rocky-2020-first-in-race-gop-challenger-to-trump-qualifies-to-appear-on-the-ballot-in-first-in-nation-primary-state-new-hampshire-200.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnie Hawes (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Those first two sources just say he filed, not that he qualified (there is a difference, as witness Rocky's NYC mayoral effort.) The last two are just Rocky's press release, and are not reliable sources for the claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I wonder, why are you denying the government sites declaration? He is the first person who filed to run in New Hampshire. I have also found him on 2020 New Hampshire Republican primary page too. What about Arkansas? Isn't that reliable? Marnie Hawes (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The government page you link is a list of people who FILED, not those who have QUALIFIED. It says it at the top - this is a list of "Filed with the Secretary of State October 30 – November 15, 2019". The Arkansas one says "Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente -- who filed Thursday", so that too is saying that he filed, not that he qualified. Filing is asking to be put on the ballot; qualifying is getting put on the ballot. You don't qualify without filing, but in most states, it takes more than just filing to qualify. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nat I´m wondering what is your intention on the editing of this article since the only things you defend are the ones that may affect the candidates' image in a negative way. Now leaving that observation aside (because later I will elevate to an admin). You are not reading the NH SOS document correctly. Some states have both processes filing and qualifying. NH is not one of them. If they file in the correct dates, they are in the Ballot. Which means he Qualified. You are supposed to do your homework before editing, and you didn´t which clearly shows that there is something weired about your participation. Tell us what it is and stop the shady stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:AA4:7300:419F:335A:D4D7:43A3 (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to file a complaint on me, the Administrators Noticeboard at WP:AIN should do the trick. If you simply wish to insult me, User talk:NatGertler may be a more appropriate spot, or you could just forego it altogether. If you just wish to make up falsehoods about me, I doubt there's a NatGertler fanfic page out there, but I suppose you could create one. Meanwhile, if you're one of the people being offered money to participate here, either through payment or participation in a bet, please review WP:PAID. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a single time in what I said previously I insulted you so don´t play that card, neither the money one. I just pointed out the fact that your edits are 100% in detriment of the candidate image and that you didn´t read properly the NH SOS paper. Which is weird that again is in detriment of the candidate. I have not been offered money and even if I was offered money it wouldn´t make your participation in this article less suspicious. Plus if someone offered me money will make no sense to publish without being a registered user, the ones who sell the ¨service¨ are users like you that have certain trajectory and are hired to make someone look good or look bad. By the way at least recognize that you didn´t read correctly the SOS paper and that he is a candidate in NH.

Again, if you wish to state a complaint against me, there the administrators' noticeboard. If you feel you can prove some conflict of interest on my part, WP:COIN may be more appropriate. If you just want to harangue me, have you tried Harangue:NatGertler? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I want is you to admit that you made a mistake by not reading the paper correctly and to correct it. Is your duty as editor. If you know how to read, do a little research and are a little objective you will do it. If not I will point out again that it is weird that you operate in detriment of this candidate in this article. Proof me wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:AA4:7300:419F:335A:D4D7:43A3 (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It's my duty to jump through any hoops some anonymous poster chooses to make for me? Can you point me to Wikipedia policy saying that? I'd be real curious to read that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to avoid responsibility by changing the subject. It is your duty to review the information and edit just the things you are sure about. Which you didn´t. And Wikipedia actually has policy for that. Either intentionally or not you made a mistake. Now that you know the truth by not correcting the article and taking the position you are taking, it just proves my point. The fact that I am anonymous has nothing to do with the things that I am pointing out, all of them are still completely true. If Wikipedia would not want anonymous users to be able to point out things like the ones I´m they would remove the feature. Rather than trying to exhaust me and change the conversation be professional about it and correct the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:AB9:7900:91C9:447C:80DC:BD3C (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Your apparent belief that everything you say must be taken as a fact without evidence is curious at best; the fact that you are posting anonymously prevents any claim of authority and the fact that not all your claims are true makes it hard to accept the ones that I don't specifically know to be false.

But hey, if you want to claim that I violated a policy, feel free to point to that policy and the edit with which I violated it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A document of the NH SOS that is on their official website, that states all the candidates and Rocky is in there registered is a FACT. Again you are trying to deviate from the FACT that you are making a mistake and your attitude towards it is suspicious ¨at best¨. Why don´t you admit that you are making a mistake. All the evidence is there on the website, 100% official, there is nothing to argue. Just do the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:AB9:7900:91C9:447C:80DC:BD3C (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You could, of course, just make that statement yourself. That you are insisting that I do it, and that you have sought to achieve that goal through insinuation, falsehood, and threats of siccing an admin on me, suggests that you are far more interested in having some control over me than in actually addressing the matter that was under discussion. I have no urge to reward such behavior. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You are interested in having control over what is displayed in this article. Even though official evidence has been presented you refuse to review it. So this is not something about rewarding me or not, is about the truth that you are well aware and still decide to ignore. If you don´t believe the evidence, you can search on your side and will find that he is in the ballot. That is undeniable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:AB9:7900:91C9:447C:80DC:BD3C (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, if you wish to continue to attack me, please take it to User talk:NatGertler. If you wish to raise a complaint against me, take it to WP:ANI or WP:COIN. If you are just going to insist that I say something that you want me to say, you might note how ineffective that has been thus far and save us all some time. If you have nothing new to add, I will take a pass on responding even if you continue repeating yourself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@NatGertler:, if you are considering Wikipedia as a reference and accuse a popular newspaper like Tampa Bay of publishing misleading news, then you should accept this reference too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Hampshire_Republican_primary

It says rocky is on the ballot with Doland Trump and the other candidates. He was the first person to qualify in NH according to the government link I sent before. I have other news links too! Like these twos. These are newspapers, not Rocky's press releases. https://5newsonline.com/2019/11/08/2-more-presidential-hopefuls-qualify-for-arkansas-ballot/ https://www.rdrnews.com/2019/11/06/local-attorney-files-to-run-for-president/ According to the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s website, a person can run in either the Democratic or Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire if they file a declaration of candidacy and pay a $1,000 filing fee. You should accept these references as proof of his qualifying on both Arkansas and New Hampshire instead of using the term "filed". The same law is not applicable to all of the states. I don't understand how can you deny this repeatedly. Marnie Hawes (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You asked a question, I answered it. I updated the page with the information I had reliable sources for. If you feel you have appropriate sources, you have the ability to update the page yourself. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Two Roque filings in NH

If you look at the NH Secretary of State sheet (as echoed by the Union Leader), there are actually TWO filings for Roque De La Fuente, one up top as a Republican, and a second one down in the November 12 Democrat filings. Given the different address, I'm not sure if that's a shenanigans filing or what. Unsure how to cover this, lacking a third-party source noting the double filing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Oh, and to complicate matters, the PO Box for the filing appears to belong to the person we currently have in the infobox as his ex-wife. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rocky's twitter claims it's a different individual, but, at least in that tweet, does not go into who that individual is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of information

In the interest of transparency: I continue to receive information regarding the campaign from a COI individual off-wiki. I am using some of that information to enhance the article (such as this addition of another state for his 2020 ballot list.) However, I am not in their employ, nor working on their behalf, but treating this as I would any COI edit request placed on the page. I am not implementing every suggested item (insufficient sources), nor are all of my edits arising from their pointers. If anyone feels any additional transparency is needed, let me know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Forgery claim

I was recently contacted by the subject of the article (who, to be clear, I have no prior relationship with and no professional relationship with.) He raised a concern about this section:

However, Malliotakis supporters Bryan Jung and James Thompson, with the blessing of her campaign, filed objections to De La Fuente's ballot petition signatures. They argued that hundreds of De La Fuente's signatures were forged. On August 1, the New York City Board of Elections ruled against De La Fuente, effectively ending De La Fuente's candidacy and leaving Malliotakis unopposed for the nomination.

His concern is that the Board of Election never judges things to be "forged", merely verifies them as valid or not - a claim which is consistent with what I've seen of petition-handling, although I've not looked closely at NYC.

This is sourced to two references, one the respected New York Daily News, the other the less-known Gotham Gazette. Of the two, only the Gazette makes the statement about forgery; the Daily News just talks about lack of valid signatures, and there are indeed other ways that a signature can be found invalid without being "forged" (and really, can you see the Daily News overlooking something as salacious as a judgement of forgery?). As such, my instinct is to lean on the Daily News source and describe the failure that way... and once we eliminate the claim that the signatures were found to be forged, we should eliminate the accusation of forgery for BLP reasons, as forgery is a crime and we know of no one even facing charges for that crime in this case, much less being found guilty. Additionally, I don't think the names of the Malliotakis supporters should be included, as these are not notable individuals and thus the names add no real substance to the piece. So I would like to replace the above with this tex:t::

However, two Malliotakis supporters, with the blessing of her campaign, filed objections to De La Fuente's ballot petition signatures. On August 1, the New York City Board of Elections found that De La Fuente did not have sufficient valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, effectively ending De La Fuente's candidacy and leaving Malliotakis unopposed for the nomination.

Any thoughts or objections? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a good improvement to me. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

With no objections, I am putting it in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Perennial candidate

During his phone call last week, the subject raised concern over the use of the term "perennial candidate" in the introduction. He felt that this was inaccurate (including that when viewing the total elections he's run in, he views the 2018 Senate candidacies as a single run for a single seat, not multiple), that it was sourced to weak sources (smaller-town papers), and that it risked propagating to more vital sources when they use this article for information on him and his candidacy, a version of WP:CIRCULAR (although of course he did not express it in Wikipedia editor terminology like that.)

One can take the usage of the term by the Los Angeles Times in July as either a counterexample to the idea that it's just being used in weak sources, or as evidence of his later concern, depending on whether one believes that the Times was using Wikipedia as a reference.

My belief is that the term is sufficiently sourced, both in the article and with additional uses such as the Times story linked above;= that it is not an unreasonable appellation given his being on ballots in four out of five consecutive years, running for a large number of positions (of which he has won none) and nominations (of which he has won one, the Reform nomination in 2016, as the American Delta ticket was not so much a nomination as a party built around him); and that the argument that he was only actually seeking one position in the Senate races is weak, as we can assume that many a perennial candidate has no real goal or expectation of getting the office listed (I doubt that Vermin Supreme has ever figured out the source for all the ponies he would need to distribute if he won), and he has stated that his candidacies then were to prove a point, which is a quite different goal than actually achieving office. Wikipedia does have a stomach for the "perennial candidate" label, seeing that the perennial candidate article which names many such candidates has not faced a deletion request in over a decade, and even then (when it passed), the issue was not the question of whether it was appropriate to label individuals with that term, but simply whether there were enough sources about the term itself to justify having an article. (The AfD did result in "Keep", of course.)

So I do not agree with his views, but felt that his concerns should be aired here, should someone choose to address them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

He is the classic perennial candidate. The type specimen, as biologists say. To say that sources like the LA Times would stoop to copying Wikipedia is absurd; the fact that he is a perennial candidate is obvious to everyone. It was obvious even before he ran in the Senate primaries of multiple states at the same time - a feat which I don't think any other candidate has ever pulled off. To answer his question, yes, it is totally appropriate to label him so and I am surprised he would object to it. I would think he would embrace it. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to confuse the electorate further...

While this guy is running as a Republican, his son Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente III is on the ballot as a DEMOCRAT in four states: California, New Hampshire, Texas, and Utah. That's according to 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. It took me a while to figure that out, because the ballot listings often seem to leave off the "III" part and I wondered if he himself was running as both! I have given the son's full name where appropriate. But sheesh! All we need is TWO identically named perennial candidates... -- MelanieN (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup - although from the ones I've looked at, Roque doesn't use "Rocky" in his filings. However, the odds of both of them winning their parties' nominations seems slim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Oh, also, Roque III does not yet qualify as a perennial candidate - to the best of my knowledge, this is his first candidacy. (Another of Rocky's sons, Ricardo, previously ran for office.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree Rocky III (wasn't that a movie?) is not a perennial candidate. But maybe he is understudying to take up the role. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I see now that California listed Roque III as "Rocky", but the other states have not. I wonder if he filed differently... or if that's just an error from whoever generated the list (who was already dealing with Rocky-the-dad appearing on it twice.) Then again, he didn't use the III on previous filings. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The son previously ran without making it clear he wasn't his father? That's unfortunate, bordering on deceptive. The III is important - whether he used it in the filing or not. Otherwise you have the impression (it was my first impression) that our Rocky is running in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. Of course that confusion may be part of the plan - just get votes, any votes, no matter what party. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

He was filing under at least a somewhat different name from his father, as all of the dad's registrations that I have seen included the "Rocky" name, which Roque's did not (until the CA one, which may have the "Rocky" name but does have the III); I'm not sure that's any less difference than the one between George Bush and George W. Bush. I expect Rocky and R3 would be perfectly happy with the press pointing out that they are two people, at least because this would be them getting coverage. Rocky has publicly pointed out that he was not the person who filed for the D ticket this time. As it is, I'm somewhat torn whether mention of R3's candidacy belongs in the 2020 Campaign section or in a Personal Life section... but suspect there will be coverage about the father/son situation to come that will make it legit for the Campaign section it's in now, so I'm in no rush to move it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

About the father-son candidacies: I'm betting it gets no coverage at all. Wanna bet? AFAIR, there was never a "George Bush" on the ballot; it was either George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush. (Too bad he didn't add "Dubya".) And here in San Diego, when Duncan Hunter's son ran for his father's seat in Congress, it was as "Duncan D. Hunter", a different name from his father. Anyhow, I went through the Democratic Primary article and changed them all to "Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente III", but maybe I shouldn't have? I didn't look at the actual filings. Change them back if you like. Maybe we could add a footnote, "not to be confused with his father, Rocky De La Fuente. Our guy doesn't use a Junior or II or anything like that. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed the primary page back yesterday. And checking the 1988 ballots that I can find online, it was just George Bush. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to show the degree of confusion that is possible - even the federal government is confused. Here, the feds are saying that RD3 FOR PRESIDENT is one of Rocky's committees - when that is the committee listed on Roque III's registration of candidacy. (Also, that registration shows that RoqueIII is not using the "Rocky" name.) And just to prep us for an eventual "family" section, it looks like Ricardo is running again, this time for the US House from California's 21st district. And for the 53rd district as well. By the way, according to the website for his last campaign, he goes by "Ricky". No chance of confusion there! So let's all keep on our toes when we find sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

And now Rocky and Ricky are both running for the same Congressional seat. Just to keep us on our toes, I reckon! Since Rocky and RoqueIII's campaigns are being covered together, and the same for Rocky and Ricky, I guess we keep the information in the campaign sections rather than trying to generate a personal life section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump lawsuit

Rocky has announced that he's suing Trump, the Trump campaign, and various state Republican offices over ballot exclusion. However, the import of this will only be seen by third-party coverage, of which I'm not yet finding any. If you see any, either please give a heads-up here or add it yourself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have found the same URL last day. Looking for a reliable source. Is this a reliable source https://www.accesswire.com/570479/GOP-Candidate-Sues-Trump-for-Election-Fraud-and-Abuse-of-Power ? However, I am looking for more. Fallen Joseph (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that's just another copy of the press release, not third-party coverage. -Nat Gertler (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC) I've now found a third-party source, and have added the material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Marnie blocked

For those trying to follow the back-and-forth of editing here: paid editor Marnie Hawes has now been blocked from editing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Marnie is now editing under the name Fallen Joseph. 2401:4900:3304:9632:6E60:B830:1B70:5D90 (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

California US Congressional primiaries

Here in California, we have non-partisan primaries for US Congress, with all candidates from all parties in the same primary and the top two vote-getters making it on the ballot. What that means is that Rocky and Ricardo are running against each other in the primary for CA-21, and could potentially be running against each other again in the November election. I have not put this phrasing in the article, as I have not seen an article addressing the De La Fuente situation in regards to this (and I want to avoid WP:SYNTH), but if anyone sees a relevant source, it may be good to add. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that we merge Rocky De La Fuente 2020 presidential campaign into Rocky De La Fuente. At this point, this article actually has more information on the 2020 campaign than the campaign article does, and it is not currently on the edge of making this article too large, nor of taking up undue weight. By making the campaign page a redirect to the 2020 section of this page, we would actually be giving readers more information and more context. Should such time come that the De La Fuente campaign pick up such significant coverage in the media and the polls that the campaign section would overwhelm this article (which might certainly become the case should the incumbent for some reason no longer be considered a presumed nominee), then a second article would be called for, but for now it seems an unnecessary split that increases the need for maintenance.

Pinging very recent IP editors and all non-blocked named editors I can identify who have made content changes (not just formatting) or engaged in talk page discussion on either page over the past year: @2600:387:8:11::69, David O. Johnson, UnnamedUser, Arglebargle79, KingOpti101, MelanieN, 150.244.199.182, JesseRafe, Sunshineisles2, SecretName101, Werldwayd, Liberaltarian12345, and Ian.thomson: --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge into main article. Merging makes perfect sense here. This is a perennial candidate with so many campaigns to count. We cannot have a separate page for each and every campaign of his. werldwayd (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge, per werldwayd's rationale.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge, 2020 candidacy has not built up any significance. His 2016 campaign built its notability through his participation in thirty-something Democratic primaries and his Reform Party/Delta Party general election run. Nothing of that sort worth notability has yet to occur in 2020. SecretName101 (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge Agree with above. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Don't Merge, The simple fact is, is that he's going to be on the ballot in all states that he can get one and it looks like he very well may come in second in the primary. The two "major" challengers are on far fewer ballots than he is, and in a basically one-man race, that's notable and we'll only have to recreate the article in three months, which is too much work. Leave it as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arglebargle79 (talk • contribs)

Arglebargle, if you want to make a case that this should be kept as a separate article, the way to do it is to find and add independent coverage from significant sources - to make the case that it meets WP:GNG by showing significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. At this point the article contains just three sources - FEC and ballotpedia, both primary and non-independent - and an LA Times article that mentions him. That doesn’t meet GNG. But good luck finding additional significant coverage to add. Even over at the main biographical article, which cites 20 sources about his 2020 run, only one of the sources covers his run in any detail, and that is his hometown paper, the San Diego Union Tribune. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• • I'd argue that even if we're going to end up needing a campaign page in the future, we'll be better off splitting it of from whatever's in this article at the time, rather than starting from the campaign page as it has been, as it has not been being maintained and has been in poor condition. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Side discussion about Wikipedia policies and procedures. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some nerd has been trying to prevent me from redowing the article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Some person whose copyright you have been violating is trying to keep you from making it more work to undo. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC) no copyright violations. one can use anything in wikipedia for free and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the creative commons licenseArglebargle79 (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Yes, the CC BY-SA 3.0 License - note that BY part, which requires attribution of the source. By copying it without attribution, you have been violating the license and thus the copyright. You have been pointed repeatedly to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but have chosen to ignore it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC) no copyright violations. one can use anything in wikipedia for free If you think that, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Period. You can only release your OWN, ORIGINAL work irrevocably. You cannot release other people's work that way. It is theirs. That includes pretty much anything that has been published anywhere, with very narrow exceptions. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC) please show me one instance of a person posting an attribution from one Wikipedia page to another. BTW. I was ASKED to come here to discuss what to do about the campaign page. I'm sorry if I stepped into your personal sandbox, but I was invited. How are you planning to make these articles significantly better in the coming months? Rocky is treated as primarily a joke in the press when he's mentioned at all. His running for seven senate seats simultaneously was rather funny, but his attempts to get on the primary ballot in this cycle is not. if you go over to the Repblican primaries talk page, you will see I've been trying to get Rocky mentioned in the various charts because he's on most of the ballots. I'm on YOUR side, and we need to get this whole thing ready for the upcoming elections. So let's play nice, okay?Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC) With the aim of keeping the merger discussion of track, I have responded regarding the conduct issues at User_talk:Arglebargle79#"Playing_nice". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC) EVERYBODY posts attribution when copying from one article to another. The full notice I use is something like "material copied from Rocky De La Fuente, see that article's history for attribution", but a shorter version is OK. If we forget to say that in the edit summary, we make a second null edit so we can add it. As for your comment here - Rocky is treated as primarily a joke in the press when he's mentioned at all. - exactly. He is not being treated as a serious candidate by reliable sources, mostly not even mentioned. There are, according to Ballotpedia,[1] 964 people who have registered to run for president. They aren't all getting a page here about their campaign; not even being on ballots (and otherwise ignored) is enough for an article. Only the ones who are treated seriously by the press are getting a article, per GNG. Yes, you were asked for your opinion on what to do about this campaign page, whether to merge it to his biography article or not. You have given your opinion. That's good. Several others have given their opinion. They will all be taken into account by whoever closes this discussion. (p.s. Thank you, Nat. We edit conflicted. I will hat this part of the discussion shortly.)-- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

* Don't Merge,Seems a bit weird to merge the page considering that this Rocky guy is apparently going to be be on the ballot for the American Independent Party in California. That could indicate that he is going to make a third party run again. I speaking as someone who just wants to make it easier for me and probably others to easily find this information. Merging the pages will clutter his page and will prevent people from getting detailed information about this particular campaign.--Dandy9753 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

: That's exactly what I was trying to say. I agree with you. Fallen Joseph (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Merge Minor perennial loser who is not covered in the media should not have a separate article for his joke campaign. Reywas92^Talk 23:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

*Don't Merger What we can do is just assuming. We don't know whats going to happen in the election. He is already on ballot in multiple states. So, In my opinion it will be a wise decision to keep it as it is now. If he doesn't get much attention or he doesn't achieve anything you can merge it after the election. No need to hurry. It's not even the beginning. So, I will say, Don't merge now. Fallen Joseph (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

On the idea that it might becoming worthwhile in the future, for now we're having to do double work to maintain two articles with what should be basically the same content. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

::: For all other candidates it will be the same thing, I guess. I don't support adding the same content in both articles. Summary should be added on the biography page and the detailed election history should be added on the campaign page. Hope, this will be more precise work and will be easy to maintain. As he is in on ballot in multiple states and running for president, it will be a huge election history to update. Merging the campaign page into his biography page will make the article look complicated. It won't be a good decision. Fallen Joseph (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at the two pages? There is very little on the campaign page that is not already here (for the most part, copied from here) - really, mainly a big, fairly unnecessary grid that would not need to be ported over (the grid of registered candidates is more appropriate for the general Republican 2020 primary page.) It is my intention to continue maintaining this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

::::: I think having this campaign page would make it easier to maintain. After all, instead of updating his personal page with campaign related stuff and making it very cluttered and dense, all the campaign stuff would be on the campaign page which would make the information easier to find for those using Wikipedia and would allow readers to find in-depth an accurate information about this particular campaign.--Dandy9753 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No, because having a campaign page does not mean that we do not cover the material on the personal page. There is not so much information that it does not fit here, and people coming here should be getting a full picture of his notable activities. I intend to try to maintain this as an informative page, and we saw up until a very recent copying of material from this page that the campaign page was not being maintained and was less informative about the campaign than this page was. Now someone's gone and added some more information to the campaign page, which I now have to go verify and see if it should be replicated on this page... or whether it's a bit of misinformation that I'll need to clear from that page, like some other things that have been added. So yeah, when I'm telling you it's harder to maintain two pages, I'm saying that as the guy who has been putting in the effort. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

*Don't Merger What we can do is just assuming.Its Dec 4th Super Tuesday is March 3rd this guy is in 12+ ballots, Trump in 11, Weld & Walsh in 9, Walsh did not try to Qualify in Alabama, Arkansas.... Window close....I want to go into one place and see who is on, and where, any lawsuits file and outcome, lets wait till Super Tuesday and see results.

• Don't Merge Besides all of what has been said.

Currently he is on the ballot in 13 States that represent a 27.32% of the territory, with combined population of 121,090,247 that represent 36.61 % of USA population.

He is a member of the latino community which is the biggest minority in the USA. With a very strong presence on the states he has qualified.

What is the problem that he has a separate article of the present campaign?

It is even better for the readers to separate the current race from his biographic article, more simple and clear for them.

We are al entitled to think whatever we want of him, but he has a serious presence in the States and merging the articles is not good for the readers.

Shabanbang (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC) — Shabanbang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Don't Merge No need to merge. He is getting coverage and within the next few months there will be more contents to add into both of these two articles and also on all other candidates bio's and campaign articles too! Don't make it complicated for the visitors who use Wikipedia for information. Searching for specific data will become tough to find in a long article if you merge. Moreover, he is an opponent from the Republican Party. I object on merging these articles. Jacques Talon (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Strike sock comment-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake: with a merge, people who go to the campaign site will be taken directly to the section of this page that deals with the 2020 presidential election, so no getting lost. People who come to this page will not have to go find another page for the information they want. That doesn't sound like complicating things to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

::: Still it doesn't seem logical to merge these two pages. Jacques Talon (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)strike sock comments-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be to just provide a link to the 2020 campaign page on the personal page instead of including any in-depth information about the 2020 campaign on the personal page. I mean think about it. He's probably going to launch more lawsuits, he might run a third party campaign. Plus his son, with a similar name, is running. Just because of the amount of information that can and could be provided about this campaign merits it's own page separate from the personal page. For the sake providing clear quality information about this campaign, this page should not be merged. Dandy9753 (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No, there's no reason to skip the most significant things that he is involved in on his personal page. It's not like there's that much about him except his campaigns. I am going to continue maintaining this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

:Not skip, just make this page the main article for the 2020 campaign with a link on this personal page, just like there is a main article for the 2016 campaign with a link on his personal page. This way, if someone wants to access all the information about his campaign, they can go to this page as the main article for the 2020 campaign. No one is asking you to maintain the 2020 page, but those that do want to add information on to his 2020 page should be allowed he ability to easily edit the 2020 campaign page instead of (based on what I have read in other discussions regarding the personal Rocky De la Fuente page) dealing with the drama attached to editing his personal page.--Dandy9753 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Except if they go to the 2020 campaign page, they are not getting all the information on the 2020 campaign, because it has not been being maintained as I have been maintaining this page... and most of the text that is there is in place because it's been copied from the work on this page. You want to pointlessly maintain a double maintenance effort. And the same conflict-of-interest block-evading editing work that has been going on here has been going on over there, wherever the discussion has ended up. (You will note that the block-evasion accounts were being used here to argue for keeping that other page.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

And with the finding that Dandy9753 was not a legitimate participant in this discussion, and was rather the latest sock puppet of a blocked user, it's looking like we have a strong, though not unanimous, consensus on merger. Am I wrong? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

There have been no updates to the campaign page by a non-banned user since December 8. these are the updates that have been done to this page in that time. The campaign page is simply not staying current and thus not serving the reader as well as a redirect would. I will ask again: is there any objection to me seeing the current status of this discussion, once we eliminate the block-evading edits, as consensus? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the lack of further objection, I have redirected the other page to the appropriate section of this one. About the only substantive thing on that page that was not already here was a grid of what contests he was up against what opponents; however, that grid was inaccurate for multiple states, so it would not actually be of benefit to have it as it was over here. The grid can be found in article history if anyone really wants to update it, but probably better just to add a link for 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#Ballot access where De La Fuente is included, albeit in footnotes. I have taken the links to the individual primaries from that grid and integrated them into the article here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Political party

The infobox currently says that he has been a Republican since 2017. He has certainly been running for Republican nominations since then, but that is different than being a registered member of the party. Last night, the campaign put out a press release which quotes someone else as claiming that Rocky is "a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party".... which is a slightly weaker source than Rocky claiming so himself, but given that the campaign is repeating that quote, it cannot be totally sloughed off, either. (This is the social media post that the press release is citing.) Now, "lifetime membership" does not mean that one is registered to that party; for the Libertarians, that apparently means that you threw $1000 their way; you don't even have to sign the pledge that would allow you to vote for delegates. But you do have to state that you are not a robot, which seems awful discriminatory for a freedom-oriented party. Robot rights, 2020!)

I'm just saying that stating the party for someone who has in the most recent and current election cycles sought the presidential nomination of 5 different political parties and is hinting of seeking a sixth may be trickier/require more documentation than we have. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should leave the "political party" line in the infobox blank. He clearly has no firm or unique commitment to any party - and AFAICT he has never had a firm or unique commitment to any party. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You and I removed them, but someone restored part of them, pointing out that he has campaigned under those names. So I have listed them all (not counting Libertarian which he has not yet gotten around to campaigning as) under "other political parties". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Now that Reason has touched on the topic, that was enough third-party coverage to get a sentence in on the Libertarian link. So I did. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

campaign website down?

Tried to hit rocky101.com this AM.... first got a GoDaddy URL parking page, tried again and it timed out. This may be momentary, but we should keep attention, see if we need to update to a new campaign page or link to an archive. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess, he has changed his campaign website or renamed the domain to http://www.rocky2020.com/. The previous website is directing to this one. I clicked on the infobox website URL on this page and it redirected to the rocky2020 website. Maybe its gonna be another confusing topic like the other one about him and his son earlier. Let's wait for a while. Fallen Joseph (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Site is back now to the previous 101 domain. Please check. Fallen Joseph (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

At this point, the rocky2020.com site has a generic campaign template that has yet to be populated with any Rocky info. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Not in Colorado?

Despite earlier reliable sources claiming that Rocky had filed in Colorado, he is not currently (Jan 1) on the Secretary of State's list of candidates. RoqueIII is, for the Democratic party, but no sign of Rocky in the Republicans. Trying to figure how best to handle this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution I have removed Colorado from the list (and am putting the material here so it can be easily restored if need be.

Colorado,

References

--Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hnnnn... Rocky is not on the candidate list, whic is a December 26 update, but he was included in the ballot order lots of Dec 23. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And with the January 3rd final list finally up, no Rocky in the Republicans. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Give his December 24 withdrawal from the Utah race, it seems likely that he similarly withdrew in Colorado. We should not treat this as him withdrawing from the presidential race altogether, as he has made no such announcement, and there may be other reasons to do this (perhaps dealing with state restrictions on running for presidency and Congress at same time??) I checked his Twitter feed, and no mention of withdrawals. We may need to check other states to see if he's listed as withdrawn there as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure he KNEW he withdrew from the Utah race.Arglebargle79 In Colorado, he's not listed on the website. In Utah, he's listed as on the ballot, as is Kamela Harris. They're both on the ballot. (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added that he will appear on the Utah ballot, with source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Why nothing about his father?

I am making research for polish article about Rocky De La Fuente and I found out that his father was an outstanding buisnesman to whom Rocky largely owes his fortune. I am surprised that english article says nothing about taking over control of the family enterprises from his father in 1990. Please, check out this article from Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-apr-30-me-fuente30-story.html . I would write something about it myselve but I don't believe my english is good enough. --Czarnybog (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Good catch! I will integrate information from this into the source (although it does cause complications with one source that painted Jr.'s auto empire as constructed rather than inherited.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I integrated the information most directly relevant to the subject of this page; while some of the other material is indeed interesting, it would take third-party coverage in material focused on Jr. to show that things like the bridge deal (cool as it is) is relevant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

Rocky De La Fuente III is running in CA for president as a democrat.

he is listed as a democratic candidate on the CA primary ballot 47.156.131.184 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, I've removed the detail about his son as off-topic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

As you will see from the Austin American Statesmen article that serves as the first reference in the son's section, mainstream sources are connecting the two campaigns, so by reliable sources there's enough link for the minor coverage we give RoqueIII. Some other sources are covering it simply to clear any confusion between the two candidates.... and given the interest of the edit-requester (who may have been confusing the two, it's not clear from his request), there seems to be reader interest here. More sources The Monitor,, Community Impact, KBMT 12NewsNow, San Diego Union Tribune. As such, I'm restoring the paragraph mentioning his son's campaign. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawal from Florida

It appears that Rocky De La Fuente has not withdrawn from the Florida primary. I am a supporter and contacted the campaign. The media misreported his withdrawal from states with sore loser laws that affect Presidential candidates. Florida does have a sore loser law but it doesn't affect Presidential candidates, and the campaign has repeatedly requested a correction from media sources that published the erroneous statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.114.51 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Given a) the voicing of this concern; b) that he remains listed as a candidate on the Florida board of elections database; c) that the previous source was not particularly high-quality; and d) that more recent Florida-based sources that mention Walsh ceasing his campaign hold De La Fuente as still running, I have moved Florida from the dropped-the-race-but-still-on-ballot list to the simply qualified-for-ballot list. If anyone objects, particularly if they have quality sourcing, please speak up! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ballot access suits

I'm not going to write it now, but will note for future reference (for whomever is interested) that this source may serve as a good base for a section on his ballot suits in general. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is getting attention

This article was the focus of an article at The A.V. Club today. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"Roque Fuente"

Someone, with zero discussion, moved this page from Rocky De La Fuente to Roque Fuente, a name which there is no sign of him ever having gone by. Every source on this page uses De La Fuente, and most of the modern news sources use Rocky. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this is the name the page should be under, and it certainly should not have been moved with no discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'm reverting back to Rocky De La Fuente.William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to revert bad moves like this? It didn't use to be like this.William S. Saturn (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There used to be an option not to leave a redirect, which kept things easier. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Cult status

Putting this here so that we can see about finding other references of this sort; Rasmussen Reports says that Rocky had developed a "cult status among hard-core election watchers". --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard discussion about this article

There is a discussion relevant to the content of this page at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rocky_De_La_Fuente. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

discussion now archived at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive307 --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I should add that the upshot of the discussions is that we should include a descriptor of the subject as a "perennial candidate" in the introduction, but not in the first sentence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Still a Republican candidate

Recents edits by @Marjorie Lloyd: have attempted to remove Rocky's current Republican presidential campaign from the introduction and remove his Republican involvement from the infobox. However, at this time, Rocky remains on the Republican presidential nomination ballot for several upcoming states, so his candidacy is ongoing (and even when it reaches the point where it is no longer ongoing, the candidacy that he had would still earn a spot in the introduction. His accepting the Alliance Party nomination is not sufficient to scrub his candidacy; Rocky himself has been the presidential candidate for multiple parties simultaneously in the past (American Delta and Reform.) His candidacy is sufficient for it to be a current party affiliation; I don't know what (if any) party he is registered under, but it cannot be the Alliance Party, as Rocky is a California resident and the Alliance Party is not (yet) on the state's list of parties that one can register under. As such, I have restored the current candidacy and maintained the Republican affiliation as current. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@IanWiniarski: You've added some 2020 link to the Reform Party twice, but haven't provided a source and I've not been able to find one. Please do not re-add without a source... and if the source is not a particularly strong one, bring it to the discussion here first, so we can reach consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

And as of June 20, a press release from the De La Fuente campaign(s) states that he is, not was, a candidate for the Republican nomination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ballot access in the general

Rocky is reporting that he is on the ballot in Tennessee. If anyone finds a third party source (or a tennessee gov't source, it's not boastful for them), that'd let us add it in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)