Talk:Gary Lee Nelson

Untitled

A question of notability has been raised. Please visit Nelson's web page (included below) to see that he is indeed notable. He has a 40-year career teaching many notable students. Visit the TIMARA Department Alumni page He is a composer with many grants, commissions and international prizes. His career narrative is included on his web page. You will also find examples of his compositions and films.

The above unsigned comment was put on the article page. I have moved it. --Richhoncho 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

comments removed from article page

I am now retired after a 40 year teaching career. I do not understand the current attacks on my wikipedia page. I feel they are baseless but I am unable to refute them in any way that I find meaningful. I have a professional page at Oberlin College and my own .com page. They come up very early in a google search for "Gary Lee Nelson." This sufficiently represents my importance and significance as well as my presence on the web and the ability of people to find and contact me. My wikipedia page is informative but no essential to carrying on my career. I am weary of defending it against faceless people who do not seem to have anything else to do and who give no detailed reasoning for flagging my page. If I could figure out how to delete my page I would do it immediately myself. I will welcome having the plug pulled.

Gary Lee Nelson Professor Emeritus

Mr. Nomoskedasticity,

I am the owner and author of this entry. I am aware of no copyright violations. The specific link you site, http://timara.con.oberlin.edu/~gnelson/gnelson.htm#GLN points to my biography on my professional page at Oberlin College. I am the author and editor of that biography. If there is something specific you believe to be a copyright violation please explain your reasons in detail. Otherwise, I will assume that you flagging and continued reversal of my own attempts to return my page to its correct form are harassment and vandalism.

Gary Lee Nelson Professor Emeritus Oberlin College

"Owner"?? Dearie me, what on earth gives you that impression? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

This article has been subjected to an attack by vandals, which has resulted in a serious incident of edit warring. I suggest that an Admin review the recent edit history of this article, taking note of the fact that the most recent spate of edits start on July 27, 2010, corresponding with the posting on a separate comments section of an external site by the subject of this article, Gary Lee Nelson. Prof. Nelson's comment was answered by the following comments of an extremely harsh nature--

Hero 26 July, 2010 Thanks Gary for your racist bollocks.

Mike 26 July, 2010 I have to agree about the silly anti-english rubbish that was posted above - as if a) this was a class battle and b) the english weren't the first country to create a legal system that was completely able to punish all members of scociety and a parliament that could attack the authority of the crown - you know the ones the American's copied instead of all the other legal systems they could have chosen to. Another demonstration of the cliche of US American ignorance doesn't help. What US American authors like Gary often forget is that European audiences are usually educated, not blindly conservative and thrive on being educated, able and willing to debate, rather than gullible and we will see through blatent attempts to change history! In any case, frederics was able to have a fair trial not distorted by willingness to pay, unlike your wonderful nation.

It appears to me that individuals who objected to Prof. Nelson's views decided to target this wikipedia article in retaliation for his public comments on this separate online article. That is NOT right and is an abuse of Wikipedia's editing privileges. Perhaps these individuals should be barred from editing in the future.67.84.177.67 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the recent spate of edits here is unrelated to the external site referred to above. An editor marked this article for improvement, and this tag brought it to the attention of other editors. This is how Wikipedia works, and by repeatedly removing these maintenance tags you are jeopardising the improvement process. --Deskford (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

After several months without edits, the timing of the most recent edits is extremely suspicious, given the above circumstances. Also, the identity of the editors making these changes is suspiciously indicative of being from the UK, where the above mentioned external link is published. It is highly suggestive that one or more of the editors, if not all, were directed to this WP article to undermine it, and that may have attracted further editors to complete the vandalism process. One has to admit that it looks extremely suspicious.67.84.177.67 (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you might suspect a connection, but I still think that unlikely and irrelevant anyway. The point remains that the recent spate of activity has all been from editors trying to improve the article by dealing with copyright issues, adding references, removing biased content and so on. By removing these tags without dealing with the issues they are flagging, you are hindering the improvement of the article. --Deskford (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Doing the 'right' thing for the wrong reasons is a legitimate basis for great concern. I'm sorry but there is no reasonable explanation for the sudden flurry of editing activity other than a deliberate attempt to undermine the subject of this article. Clearly the attempt to block the article based on alleged copyright violation, and the tagging as not notable were spurious efforts, as evidenced by the administrative intervention. Prof. Nelson is quite capable of coming along from this point forward, as am I, to make improvements if they're truly necessary. In the meantime, will other editors please refrain from further acts of 'editing'/vandalism. As for whatever may have followed these initial spurious edits, I can only say that it reminds me of the old phrase, 'flies on shit.' And by that, I mean there was an undue and sudden attraction by British editors to this article about an American Professor, and that stinks even worse, I think.22:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I came across this article whilst on recent changes patrol, I noticed it was being edited by the articles subject who was also using sockpuppet accounts. My edits are entirely non controversial citation requests. I have not read the external site referred to above and have no other agenda other than a reliably sourced neutral encyclopedia.Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The article's subject was editing properly under his proper Wikipedia username, not as a sockpuppet. You have blatently lied about that. Secondly, it was not he who was first editing, but rather, a set of vandals, reputation managers hired by Kingston University to exact revenge because the subject, Prof. Nelson, had dared to criticize them in the comments section of a published article. This fact is well documented. Your reasons for joining in the party are unclear, but what is clear is that this all started on the same date as the attacks against Prof. Nelson (in the Times Higher Education article comments section) by Kingston's reputation managers, who then turned to Wikipedia to continue their attacks.67.84.177.67 (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see sockpuppet investigation [1] Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a false allegation of sockpuppetry, and is part of the deliberate attack against Prof. Nelson. See comments in sockpuppetry investigation, which was begun and completed, with Prof. Nelson blocked within a matter of minutes following the posting of this investigation, depriving him and others of the opportunity to present a defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.177.67 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments you have added to that sockpuppetry investigation page only reinforce the notion that Nelson was indeed using multiple accounts. Anyway, "Garyleenelson" was editing prior to the last edit by "Geldryk", so your explanation suggested there doesn't hold up. (One wonders how you would know in any event...) Nelson is still able to edit his own talk page, which I have on my watchlist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ronnysagle (talk · contribs) (anagram of "Gary Nelson"), another single-purpose account, was also editing concurrently with Geldryk (talk · contribs). --Deskford (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was waiting to see if anything further was going to come from that one. I do think PeterSymmonds ought to put the block template on the accounts' talk pages so that he knows how to appeal. I don't think it's right to prevent Nelson from contributing to the article talk page here -- as long as he plays by the rules and understands that he doesn't own the page (as against his statement to that effect above). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm willing to accept it was a case of not understanding Wikipedia protocol rather than deliberately abusing multiple accounts. --Deskford (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think it's interesting that Nomoskedasticity refers to Prof. Nelson as just 'Nelson.' Quite similar to the disparaging references to people by just their last name in the comments section of Times Higher Ed. Indicates a bit of a suspicious language usage pattern.67.84.177.67 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing disparaging about referring to you by your surname. It's just a convenient formal shorthand, used widely throughout Wikipedia. --Deskford (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that the IP's references to "reputation managers" are intended towards me. The idea that I am a "reputation manager" for Kingston University is preposterous -- as you would see if you dig far enough into my contributions history. Not that it matters (particularly with other editors active on this article) -- the main thing for you now is to familiarize yourself with WP:NPA, especially "comment on content, not on contributors". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks intended nor made -- only identification of editing behaviors. Kingston has hired a firm that engages WP editors with extensive editing histories to vandalize articles in order to achieve their objectives. It is a common tactic now practiced by a number of educational and corporate institutions. I think most people realize that this has started to happen to WP, and I don't know how best to stop it, except that when it is identified, the onus should be on the person(s) accused to prove by providing a plausible explanation for the 'coincidences' identified -- i.e. in this case the British origin of the offending editors, the particular SUBJECT interest and why they have such an interest, and the timing of the edits in relation to the external website controversy.67.84.177.67 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please could you point out the exact instances of vandalism and the offending editors. I believe you are creating a conspiracy theory around perfectly normal editing behavior from long standing good faith editors.Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The following are the edits that constitute vandalism---

(cur | prev) 10:01, 28 July 2010 Deskford (talk | contribs) (6,687 bytes) (→Biography: Marking copyright violation.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:20, 27 July 2010 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (6,334 bytes) (no refs) (undo)

(cur | prev) 09:11, 30 July 2010 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (6,705 bytes) (Undid revision 376187763 by Ronnysagle (talk))

(cur | prev) 13:20, 30 July 2010 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) m (6,705 bytes) (Reverted edits by Geldryk (talk) to last version by Nomoskedasticity) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:23, 30 July 2010 Seaphoto (talk | contribs) (7,315 bytes) (Tagging page for speedy deletion, importance/significance not asserted (HG)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:42, 30 July 2010 Teapotgeorge (talk | contribs) m (6,368 bytes) (Added {{unreferencedBLP}} tag to article using Friendly) (undo)

(cur | prev) 22:43, 30 July 2010 Deskford (talk | contribs) (6,401 bytes) (Article would benefit from a WP:NPOV rewrite.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:44, 31 July 2010 Bkonrad (talk | contribs) m (6,401 bytes) (Reverted edits by Garyleenelson (talk) to last version by Deskford) (undo)

(cur | prev) 08:41, 31 July 2010 Teapotgeorge (talk | contribs) m (6,316 bytes) (Added {{coi}} tag to article using Friendly) (undo)

(cur | prev) 08:20, 31 July 2010 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (6,293 bytes) (→Research: ditto) (undo)

(cur | prev) 08:19, 31 July 2010 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (6,344 bytes) (→Biography: rm unsupported hyperbole) (undo)

And so forth....... 67.84.177.67 (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's just adorable. You're invited to visit WP:VANDAL to learn what vandalism at Wikipedia actually looks like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." -- this is precisely what has been done to this article by the above editors. Specifically, the removal and change of content, which in this instance, compromises the integrity of Wikipedia, as its purpose was purely to undermine the subject of the article.67.84.177.67 (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

All righty, then: the address you're looking for is WP:AIV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As a long time contributor to Wikipedia, I find your comments deeply insulting and offensive. I suggest you take them to WP:AIV as suggested above.Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation request

I have been accused of vandalism for requesting a citation for the following sentence "At he International Conference on Computer Music (ICMC) at Northwestern University in 1978, Gary Lee Nelson was identified as a pioneer in the field of computer music" I have searched through the external links on the page but can find no mention can anyone help?Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if this information is somewhere to be found among the external links, it is perfectly reasonable to request a specific reference to verify such a claim. --Deskford (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)