Talk:David Jay Brown/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Please consult WP:V which all Wikipedia articles must meet. WP:EL is a helpful guide to what kind of external links are acceptable. WP:CITE explains the choice of citing methods you can use to verify the information in your article. Good luck! GBYork 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

Need citations

Where has he published these interviews besides his own website? Surely there must be links to articles per WP:V, WP:EL and WP:CITE. GBYork 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

Read the article. It gives titles, volumes, publishers. You need to go find yourself. -999 (Talk) 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is your job as editor to follow WP:CITE. You have listed references at the bottom, which is not the same thing. Please have a look at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which is a well-cited article. Check out the text after the introduction section, or look at the infobox. The little numbers by various facts, which link to lines in the references section, are citations. Specifically, they are done in the footnote style, but you can use one of the other citation methods on WP:CITE if you like; it's up to you. Note that nowhere on WP:CITE will you find the "list a bunch of links at the bottom of the page" method, because that is not citation. If you need help, please let me know. GBYork 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

I find your attitude rather funny. I am not one of the creators of this article, I am simply helping out by trying to improve it, as you should be doing. You are also an editor of Wikipedia - you can research and create citations as well as any of us. But I see that all you are doing is going around and tagging articles and acting like a petty tyrant. That is not productive. I also note that you are not an admin, and indeed that your first edit was on August 11, 2006. You are a newbie (unless you are somebody's sock puppet), and should not be going around making demands of editors who have been around longer than you.

You are not aware apparently of WP history. You will find many, many articles which simply have a list of references. This is because policies change and it used to be acceptible to do so. In fact, at the beginning, many articles didn't even list their references - there was a big drive for people to add appropiate references to articles - even if those references were not used to create the articles.

You really need to relax and try to help out rather than going around in a demanding huff like you are in charge here. You are not. -999 (Talk) 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In the list of publications, it includes Nature Medicine. That "article" is Mr. Brown's response to a negative review of one of his books. Does this count as a "publication"? Seems a little bit peacocky to me.Rageahol (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed libelous content

The brief reference to Ronin Publishing in the bibliography contained potentially libelous material, so i removed it. the good news is, the book appears to now be recredited. but still, whoever added the lines, please dont bring legal disputes to the articles, or material that could violate WP:BLP. thanks Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

It is my opinion that the editor 74.220.79.129 (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest with this article. Except for one edit, all his/her edits have been to this article or to Carolyn Mary Kleefeld, an article created by DavidJayBrown (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No evidence that this editor has a conflict of interest has been offered, and no additional input from this editor has been posted since 2009. I am going to remove the tag; however, the issue of a lack of 3rd party citations still remains. This should NOT affect such sections as the list of books, translations, or the categories. Rosencomet (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems I see with this page

Forgive me, I'm just a drive-by editor here. I was drawn here by the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard post and just looked over the article quickly. There are a couple of problems I see.

Firstly, there are a few peacock terms here. Stating that he is "well-known for his many in-depth interviews with leading-edge thinkers" is an example. Also, this article is written like a resume, going in-depth about things that are somewhat inconsequential. Listing every single person he ever interviewed, his massage practictioner degree, etc. are things you'd see on a resume for someone applying for a job, not an encyclopedia article. I would not be surprised if Mr. Brown were maintaining this as has been alleged.

Secondly, and more importantly, there are zero third-party references for this article. Every single reference given is to something that Brown has written. Self-published sources are to be used sparingly and at need, they are unacceptable to reference an entire article. Additionally, this is a biography of a living person which has a higher standard for verifiability than other kinds of articles. Information that can't be independently verified must be removed.

Again, sorry I don't have time to clean this all up but really this article is a mess. -- Atama^chat 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors Please Note

David Jay Brown has requested I report that for the second time somebody has redirected this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_jay_brown&redirect=no to a page called: Behavioral Neuroscience. David had somebody change it back and it happened again. Please try to help us figure out what is going on. Altogether (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This disregard for the work of other editors is outrageous.Rosencomet (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Qworty's constant attacks on this article are improper and out of proportion. Whole sections and simple additions of citations get deleted on unsupported claims. The notion that the entire section of lecture venues must be deleted simply because one is linked, just to support the fact that the appearances took place at an event, to the website where the catalog of speakers of that event exists, is absurd. The ONLY connection I have to this author is these appearances, which are over ten years old, and are among hundreds of speakers and entertainers that have appeared at this event. Qworty first deletes data because it is uncited, then deletes any attempt to add citations, and deleted ENTIRE SECTIONS rather than any specific one he/she objects to, adds unsupported accusations, and won't add "citation needed" tags; no, entire sections of other editor's work are dumped. This is, IMO, unacceptable.Rosencomet (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read this [1], specifically the policy "Unsourced material may be removed at any time." This is one of Wikipedia's core policies. My purpose is to follow policy. Your purpose is to personally promote David Jay Brown and the Starwood Festival. That is wholly inappropriate. You need to read WP:COI and WP:SPA and WP:OWN. Please also read WP:CIVIL. Not only are your motivations in editing Wikipedia improper, and not only are you ignoring basic policies, but you are putting a lot of energy into personally attacking those who do follow policy. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I support Qworty on this and it may be time to start looking at some blocks here and there. By the way, I am uninvolved here, just saw it on WP:FTN. History2007 (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

COI Tag

I would request some evidence of any real COI and specifics as to who is referred to by this tag, or having it removed.Rosencomet (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• You're Rosencomet and you insist on adding links to Rosencomet.com [2] [3]. Wikipedia isn't a free web hosting service for you to promote your personal website. Please read WP:COI. You should also read WP:OWN and WP:SPA. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I support Qworty's comments and clean up so far. This page seems like a thinly disguised marketing piece anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

IMO, many of the edits on this article are too extreme. In particular, there is no reason to delete this author's bibliography. Rather than suffer accusations of COI because this author appeared at an event I help organize over ten years ago, I hope some other editor will reinstate it (and perhaps review some of the other deleted material).Rosencomet (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am the photographer and I replaced the photo

I took the photo of David Jay Brown and released it to Wikipedia under Creative Commons 3.0. Please let me know if there are problems before deleting my work. I am happy to rectify any issues but I can't do that unless I am told. I was checking my watchlist and was surprised to find that it had been deleted. I don't see a problem with the copyright.Canticle (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal Vendetta

The deletion of this article seems to be motivated by a vendetta of personal dislike. There is nothing wrong with the sources cited. This page should NOT be marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlacaelel (talk • contribs) 19:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to express this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Jay_Brown Rosencomet (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Without the personal attack and after reading WP:PEOPLE if you want anyone to pay any attention to you. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)