Talk:Matthew Steen

First of talk pages for improvements/verifications/documentations

Thank you so very much wikipedia biog editors and unseen/unknown/anonymous staff. As you can read I've resurfaced from the underground and have only been in the ethernet for six weeks. Before that I had to fly under the radar as y'all can probably figure out from the content of this bio. I need help though and it is important for future researchers and historians after we are gone to capture the fact, detail, nuance and social context of the WUO. After all, we (all of us) were young Americans looking for truth and to change the world, like generations before us and those to follow. However, in specific I need to gain further access to microfilmed records of print media and video from broadcast in order to present a fuller, more descriptive snapshot for the purposes of this page. I need to gain access to cbs60 minutes video and transcript for my national lead segment on 60 Minutes in November 1977 (see WUO wiki page - which I probably fucked up, I'm sorry). Y'all have to realize how very long it has been plus my recovery from the repression and tenor of the times of the late sixties and seventies. I am not wealthy, few of us ever were, so, consider the absolute sacrifice of these people interrupting lives and loves and risking all to put forth the proposition that we can be a great society. Changing weather, changing institutions forty years later. So, please help with this folks.99.127.230.217 (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)99.127.230.217 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Wiki editors unknown for the links and disambiguations so far. Thanks for creating this article stub biography. Please keep doing your assessments and ratings. This needs to go through the hard way.99.127.230.217 (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Made some improvements to stub article with sections, eliminating link rot, greater uniformity in citations, syntax, typos, etc. I know I've work to do on this article, especially greater separation of issues, actions and the like. I am completely reworking the lede. How do I get the right-side box into the article, the box with short bio info??? Anybody out there??? Help. Weathervane13 20:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Stub article has been completely revamped. Has sections and is chronological.

How do I get to start article??Weathervane13 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

OK, I'm getting the hang of Wiki MOS, overlinks, citation conformity, developing the lede and overall structure. Lede still needs work. Need to learn how to change fonts, use italics, indents, restyling section heads, activating article links and moving stub article up the assessment scale. Thanks folks anonymous that are helping at WIKI. Weathervane13 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

• Well, for one we do not indent often, only to set aside a larger quote, and for this we use a series of colons such as you used for your above post. We also don't change fonts in articles from the default, so we don't need to worry about that. Section heads are done by using a series of == on each side of the section title. Italicized text is created by placing '' on each side of the text, and bold done by placing ''' . The first thing that could be done right now is going through and removing any red Wikilinks. Also many of the citations appear to be available online. Make sure that they are hyper-linked with the full URL (including "http://"). Also some of the references need to be specified. For example you cannot just list "santa barbara news-press.com/archives", rather you need to point to the specific location in those archives. I am also not sure about your use of sources such as : "fbi.gov/classified /unreleased FOIA files". Not only is that not a valid URL, but are you referring to classified government documents? If so, those should be removed as that would be a violation of a serious criminal offense, and against Wikipedia policies.

Those things should give you a good start on improving the article. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! OK on the indents/colons. I'm reading Wiki MOS for some help and paying attention to Wiki advice. OK on the fonts, I was just curious as I didn't see a practical way of doing it.

How do I create a pipe from my keyboard; it's been years. ASCII character?

Next, italics solved OK. I removed overlinks problems. I read that redlinks degrade the quality of articles, so I'll go thru it. Are a few allowed, like less than ten in an article this length? -- I'm editing the lede and sections content to improve internal quality, form and ? Hyperlinks . . . I have to look up how to activate hyperlinks, are these the bluelinks?

You are absolutely correct re classified documents and I'll delete references to them until the FBI has actually released these files to me under the Freedom of Information Act. Thanks for that. Cite locations -- working on it; some of this material is located in university archives and newspaper archives. I have the year and, usually the month, but not the exact day the referenced event appeared in print.

Thanks so much Aaron, anonymous Wiki editor. Am a quick learner, just haven't been in the ethernet since 1996, before email. Bear with me. Weathervane13 23:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Wikifolks -- I read this stub article was nominated for a speed delete??? This nomination must be contested . . . While the article is in need of further edit to the lede and body content, it would seem this information provides missing contextual information, dates, names, locations, descriptions, analysis and cites/refs.

Also, the nature of the subject matter seems to have historical import, albeit at a low level in the Wiki hierarchy of articles. Granted. However, the unique items ---

    Only CBS 60 Minutes Interview of former Weatherman leading to the emergence of   the entire Weather Underground seems significant;
    Explanation of WUO theory of white-skin privilege is relevant;
    An original member of WUO seems significant;
    None of the Above ballot option seems significant;
    Throwing a tear gas bomb at Vice-President Spiro Agnew is newsworthy;
    Bonding out Tupac Shakur's mother is noteworthy;
    Handling the legal case of the only person ever convicted of peacetime mutiny

in US history, USS Columbia Eagle Alvin Glatowski, with a legal cite is worthwhile;

    Any number of other items in the body of the stub article are valid???

Anyways. I'll keep working to shorten the article, with the aim to elegance, I hope. So, thanks for the help so far. Weathervane13 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Weathervane13 The account you have been giving here about the 60 Minutes story is inaccurate. No source has been found that any member of WUO, President Carter, or members of the band the Talking Heads saw the segment. The actual video and Congressional hearing transcript reveal that nothing from your account was aired on that segment. Details down to who conducted the interview are wrong. The interview was done by Mike Wallace not Dan Rather, yet you keep reverting edits that correct your errors and label them vandalism.

Many other errors, like sources you claim to mention your activities, turn out to be inaccurate also when the documents you reference become available online.

Others and I have attempted to engage you about this on this talk page, as well as your own talk page.

Unsourced and badly sourced passages are now being deleted.SteveJEsposito (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC) SteveJEsposito (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Work to be Done on B article

I forgot to mention above that I fully realize the improvements to the lede and body of article that need to be made. I am striving for some elegance and compliance with Wiki MOS, and my responsibility to adhere to Wiki assessment guidelines. I need to tighten it up but am keeping a new eye on Wiki written and archived advice. I've only been doing this for two months now. Last time on a computer was in the late 90's, when I had to disappear again for a while, you've read about it. So, please, please, please, as JB would say, bear with me. If I make a mistake, it will be rectified. Please don't be shy folks if you want to or need to edit this article. That's what it is there for. I won't get mad, unless you make it hurt too much. Seriously, anyone who's interested, go for it. You folks are much better at this than I, but I's cathchin' up . . . I am going to do few edits on other articles, but only if I can ref/cite or remove bad English. Thanks again.Weathervane13 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to Use WLP B-Class banner

Instructions say to discuss changes to banners and parameters. OK. I though Wikipedia changed this automatically with bots (?) after an article progressed through an assessment stage? So, before I f with it, I'll wait to hear from kind Wiki editors. Oh, I'll be editing other and maybe even random articles as I become accustomed to Wiki formats and MOS and etiquette and real egalitarianism! With peer review and support, what more can a soul request! Also need to remove some old AFC/Stub things at the bottom of talk page. Let me know what to do or not to do. Also have a bit of research to do gathering cites/refs to flesh out that part. Thanks.Weathervane13 (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Reclassification of Article to Start from B-Class

I need some help here folks. I've provided substantial cites/refs re subject matter. These cites are certainly valid as all news articles cites, Eugene Register, Oregonian, Seattle Times, New York Times, San Francisco Weekly all specifically refer to Steen. I have, in the last week, paid attention to cite reliability as a priority. I have obtained the actual articles, why cannot Wiki??? Do you want me lose cites and refs from the article?? Do you want me to just forget about it?? I assume your hcard tag would unearth these references. I also think the article could be considered controversial, although I've not yet seen vandalism, which surprises me. I have provided specificity in order to improve reliability. I have removed certain parts that may not be able to be backed by reference. I've refrained from citing other living persons in the article. With regard to the Obama references, this person is the last person standing, or still alive beyond the principals mentioned. The 60 Minutes reference is pristine and totally unassailable. I've used Yasni to dig up archived articles. What more can be done. The story is certainly dramatic, of interest, has notability and probably too many references. So, can you folks provide me with some guidance, suggestions or advice. Don't be shy. Again, nearly every offered fact is supported by the record. What more can I do? Is the writing bad or deplorable? The article is superior to the original stub article, yes? Help!!!--Weathervane13 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Start Class Article and Speedy Delete Protection

I looked up Start and realized the protection offered by Wiki from speedy delete, my fate the first time around last month. Thank you. I'll just have to work my way back up the assessment scale. So be it. I think I was classified B to circulate the article temporarily for feedback from the ethernet. Fine. This is, incidentally, my original intention. Posting this thru AFC and taking the hard road. So, thanks for the advice to relax (deadline) a bit. Will simply go slow and rework this article, the lede and body, to cut it down, consolidate, lose bad refs/cites and unsupportable claim. FBI files in this case has not been released, perhaps, for some obvious reason. Anyway. Wiki has been very helpful. You can tell I've been slowly learning. Thanks again for your wisdom and help.--Weathervane13 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment I only see 5-6 valid citations. The rest are URLS that do not exist. Some of them could likely be fixed by locating the specific URL to the page that you got the cited information from. You seem to be trying to cite potential sources that may exist, or you know exist but don't know where, and are trying to format this as some sort of URL hybrid. -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuing article edits

am still working on article and actively soliciting comments, advice, opinion.

will be doing heavy edits to internal content to shorten the article to a more appropriate length; ditto with lede. laptop is still dead, no time, busy, busy, busy organizing, etc in the City. Weathervane13 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of headings and sub-headings

The Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings and sub-headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,

Important things to know about this subject

not:

Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading or and sub-heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:

• capitalize the first word,
• capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
• begin all other words with lower case letters.

See WP:MSH for more information. Ground Zero | t 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:MOS#Abbreviations says: "The letters in an acronym or an initialism are generally not separated by periods (full stops) or blank spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH). Periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage (PhD is now preferred over Ph.D. and Ph. D.)." Ground Zero | t 01:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why and how is this article in Main space?

I tried to fix some of your cites, but got nowhere, they are just fragments. Impossible to find anything or verify anything.  :- ) Don 02:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent suggestions and comments in July 2012 on start article

 Thank you for your kind comments re MOS.  Will fix the problem I created.
 Oh, and thanks for the heads-up re acronyms and dots!!

 And the research done on the references.  Hmmm . . . these footnote references
 were non-conforming to Wiki standards when first submitted to WikiWorld as
 an AFC.  I then went about conforming media sources to cite standards to better
 enable researchers.  Some were never scanned into the system in the 1950's ~ 1980's
 but are archived at the sources cited; some are pay-only (NY Times); some are
 overseas and/or in foreign language(Japan/Europe)only; and some will need redaction
 or removal ~ no doubt.  However, the crux of the article is clearly authentic and
 has already been verified by other Wiki editors, which is why this is a start-class
 article and no longer a stub.

 Minimal research would reveal "60 Minutes" as 'real'.  As well as the articles re
 WUO and membership lists.  And the news articles from the late sixties and early
 seventies in New York Times and news dailies in Seattle and Portland and SF.
 S0 ~~ I don't know.  Am slowly editing article to meet Wiki MOS standards and
 collecting further documentation through yasni.com and other sources.  If I can
 get it, then so can anybody else who has been properly trained for basic research.

 Anyways, thanks for your effort.  Can always use help.  It will help if and when
 the FBI releases my files . . .  This is a 2+ year project but no time lately, 
 lots of volunteer social work for the homeless in SF.     --208.70.28.126 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear quacking

I took over 1/2 hour trying to match a citation in the Boston Globe every way possible and nothing. Many of the URL's are not even close to the real URL. SantaBarbaraNewsandReveiw.com is very unlikely, (I used to read it) they went out of business before the internet was invented by Al Gore. I will have a crack at the Santa Barbara News and Review. What has 3 letters, starts with a C and ends with a D?
 Looks like a duck to me --  :- ) Don 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole article looks like a love letter to Steen, who seems to consider Wiki as his own personal autobiography platform. The article has a self-important, congratulatory tone that suggests several ligaments must have been pulled while patting oneself on the back. There are multiple topic headings with zero content, as if Steen is encouraging others to fill in the blanks (the article is not supposed to be a sandbox). As Dcshank noted, many of the citations are dead or are not pertinent to the reference. Every detail of this guy's life is being recounted, though I think potty training was skipped. ;-) Clearly the article has merit and should be on Wiki, but as is it's little more than a platform for Steen to trumpet his "accomplishments" and wax poetic about the WUO's idealistic machinations. The following sentence wouldn't belong on the WUO page, let alone one of it's members: "The desire of Weatherman rank and file to re-engage at the community level, working to steward institutional changes wrought by the political, cultural and racial upheavals arising from the paradox of America in the 1960s and 1970s, was an overarching reason, the aching need to embed a new social paradigm in the national fabric now that the war was over." This sentence and many others in the article are the very reason why Wiki has the WP:AUTO policy. If everything on the page now was moved to a sandbox and Steen (or someone else) worked to get it cited correctly (so rigorous fact-checking could take place) it might be useful as an outline to rewrite the entire article from scratch - by someone else BESIDES Steen. As it is now, it's very obviously Steen's self-aggrandizing autobiography and much, much too long. PS Dcshank, is the answer "cod"? ;-) Supertheman ^(talk) 08:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Re old citations

True, the SB News and Review is out of business, being bought out by Santa Barbara Independent. So, how shall I cite

this now-defunct publication and source material.  Which I too read for many years.  Insofar as Boston Globe, type in
keywords Agnew and tear gas grenade and 1971 and Boston.  You may want to quack at the 60 Minutes interview.  Seriously,
all URL's are valid maybe with the exception just noted, from 100+ citations.  Any comments on how to validate source
material not scanned and available on internet that is free and not pay as you go??? You can also go to the University
of California public archives located in Davidson Library on campus.  Are you just lazy and can't get off a terminal??

Did you think source material is only located on the internet???--208.70.28.126 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

== Cleaning article of linkrot/how to cite lccn's?

How do I cite lccn's to remove and guard against linkrot? I'll ask this again in Teahouse. Will be going thru main article to remove self-reflective observations previously noted on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

I have been continuing to clean up after an anonymous editor who has benn adding unnecessary repeated links (see WP:REPEATLINK), and has been adding periods in acronyms (see [[WP:ACRONYM -- Wikipedia uses the style "FBI", not "F.B.I."). I have noted these policies in the edit summaries, but the anon editor continues. I will start reverting these edits instead of cleaning them up. Ground Zero | t 10:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting Anonymous Edits

You are correct Ground Zero. Such edits will stop. Was not sure how to address the problem you pointed out. Read your talk page and some Strunk and am now straight on this problem which will no longer continue. Thank you for your patience and warning about my persistent fixation on this.99.127.230.217 (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Removed

This was an arbitrary edi. with a negative pov and a political axe to grind. You point to npovs without description beyond the single correction that was made. Tag is removed. Weathervane13 02:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality questioned

The Fred Hampton section was so biased, it was a joke. Just reading the beginning of the article shows it is biased, and likely is throughout. The third paragraph reads like a burlesque. One of the footnotes justifying the bias isn't even live -- it links to nothing. I'm not about to go through this and have edits reverted by true believers.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there are a lt of problems with this artcle. It sounds, n many places, like it is trying to build up ths guy into something really big. I have removed a section that claimed his actions "foreshadowed" Edward Snowden. Really. There is also an unclear reference to Michelle Obama. It doesn't say they even ever met, so why is it there? Ground Zero | t 12:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Fred Hampton section came back. It ended with a Matthew Steen quote with no citation of any kind. The rest of the section was "substantiated" with citations to a fictional movie.

There does not appear to be any reason why a Fred Hampton section should be included in this bio, since there is not even an implication that Steen had interactions with Hampton. SteveJEsposito (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

January 2014 overhaul

this article continues to face a lot of problems. I have been editing vigorously, but feel that it still needs a lot of work. It really reads like it was written by Steen or by a fan.

• It does not look like it was written by someone trying to be objective.
• There is extraneous information about people, places and organizations that is not really about Steen.
• There were attempts to make Steen seem more important by drawing tangential references to people like Michelle Obama and Edward Snowden.
• Many references were to other Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia canot be used as a reference for itself.
• The language is "colourful" or journalistic, e.g., referring ton him as "the aging activist", rather than factual and encyclopedic.
• There are lots of claims that are not supported by references to reliable sources.
• Excessive linking keeps creeping back in. WP:OVERLINK.
• Excessive information is being packed into sub-headings. WP:HEAD.

Ground Zero | t 15:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The problems you note here and that are noted in later talk are still throughout the page. I actually have a copy of the 60 Minutes interview on DVD and performed an extensive edit of that section, only to have it reverted by someone claiming "vandalism," but not on this talk page. For example, the note on this talk page claiming that the 60 Minutes interview lead to any surrenders at all was purely made up. Mark Rudd himself told me in an interview that he never knew of it. Also, it first aired Feb, 1, 1976. The old passages relied on the incorrect Congressional Record that placed the show in 1977, then linked various surrenders to that date. Finally someone has taken a pause in reverting from provable fact to fantasy fiction. Hopefully others will be able to evaluate the other sections as to their correctness.SteveJEsposito (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Will be cleaning this article of NPOV and other minor problems.

BTW, the foreshadowing Snowden reference is accurate in that the FBI Media raid was the first confirmed instance of illegal government violations of constitutional rights to privacy (wiretaps, mail openings, 'black bag' burglaries) with the tools of the secretive COINTELPRO apparatus. Thank you for reviewing article with a critical eye. 70.90.165.209 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to Rename Article to 'Matthew Steen'

Am proposing to change the name of this article by dropping the middle name. Will fix links in other articles. Does this pose any problem? As time permits, will be shortening article, partially rewriting lede, losing some now extraneous sections, and removing the evil NPOV violation, some parts already modified by other editors. Weathervane13 23:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

NPOV, Bad links, etc.

This article is jam packed with wholly unsourced information. It is full of "citations" that don't go anywhere or have no connection to the subject at all. Even after the transcript to the 60 Minutes article was added and extraneous false information was removed, the false information was added again with the accusation of "vandalism" as the justification for adding it back.

There have been false quotations from books (This must be the Place, about the Talking Heads is one) added to the footnotes, which were deleted, then undone with the same "vandalism" accusation used for justification.

Perhaps another editor should visit and verify.

Is there a bot that can check the links in citations? SteveJEsposito (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Financing Activities

Vandalism? Nothing in this section links anything to Steen. The external links to NYT stories all returned "Page not found". The only thing that links Steen to financing activities on the whole page is the 60 Minutes story section. SteveJEsposito (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

1969 SDS convention and Weatherman

Issues about this being part of a Biography of a Living Person. While the play-by-play might be appropriate for a story about the convention, the copy that was deleted did not relate directly to Steen. What is left has problems too and needs proper citations. SteveJEsposito (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Link Overhaul

This entire page is full of irrelevant and bad citations which smack of vandalism. Doing a pass to replace them with "citation needed" tags for now. SteveJEsposito (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP Vandalism and Libelous Statements -- Ongoing

This BLP has been repeatedly vandalized by user Stephen J Esposito for a number of months. Valid citations and entire sections have disappeared. No attempt was made to fix broken links to media citations. A complaint and warning of vandalism was posted on the talk page the day after this was detected. However, the vandal deleted this from the talk page, although he started referencing vandalism immediately thereafter. In addition, this user has inserted an inflammatory and libelous statement averring I attempted to inform to the FBI (the BLP is about myself); a lawsuit is presently under way against Random House and Penguin Press for the same unverified and undocumented statement in their recent publication "Days of Rage". Further, extraneous quotes from 40 year old Congressional testimony was inserted to debase the value of the sections and wording previously contained in the BLP; there was no purpose served beyond the reference originally contained in the BLP. This user has also altered other BLPs and articles associated with Weather Underground Organization. The user is associated with a "right-wing" Liberty Foundation, which seemingly has an axe to grind with former members of Weather Underground. I would ask all vandalism be reverted to the date it started earlier this year and that this user be blocked. I am also requesting a second, impartial editor to review the article prior to the vandalism. Thank you for your assistance. Weathervane13 21:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Came here to answer the {{adminhelp}} request and looked at the article's history. It hasn't been edited by anyone other than SteveJEsposito since March 2015 (except for a few bot edits), and I have to admit some confusion about the amount of referenced content removed from the article. This is not my bailiwick, but I'm pretty sure this falls under American politics 2. I'm going to post the discretionary sanctions alert to the user talk pages of both SteveJEsposito and Weathervane13.

@Ground Zero: since you have previously posted to this talk page, would you take a look at the diff I provided and tell me if I'm mistaken here about this scope of this user's edits? KrakatoaKatie 01:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I don't quite know what to do here. To me, this article is problematic in that before SteveJEsposito's edits, it was very long, and most of the content had been provided by one editor, User:Weathervane13, who may have a connection to the subject of the article. As SJE noted in editing comments, often times the links between the subject of the article and the content were incidental, and appeared to be for the purpose of making the subject seems more important. I had removed a some statements earlier for the same reason. At the same time, SJE did remove a whole lot of referenced content. I do not see, however, anywhere, e.g., on the article's talk page, where these two editors have tried to sort out their differences and come to agreement on what should or should not be in the article. Indeed, Weathervane13's first contribution since March 22, 2015, was to ask for admin help. As I have no knowledge of the subject, I am not inclined to get involved in resolving a dispute for editors who have not tried to resolve it themselves. Like other admins, I do not get paid for doing this. Contributors are expected to do their best to resolve disputes themselves before asking others to intervene. Ground Zero | t 16:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, a libelous statement was inserted into this article by SJE; this user also removed large sections of the article and references. Even removed a reference to my mother in the lede. User inserted 'citations needed' removing valid references. This is obviously ongoing vandalism. My only recourse is to either revert all SJE edits or ask for speedy deletion of the entire BLP article. This is a BLP article with higher standards for editing. As pointed out, this user has also vandalized other articles and BLP pages related to Weather Underground Organization and maintains a blog (austriaanarchy) that is clearly partisan and has no interest in mediation. Will insert links as requested by KrakatoaKatie. Since this has been posted, there has been no response from SJE. Weathervane13 17:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

From Biographies of living persons "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." is what is at issue here.

This is certainly an ongoing issue with this page as User:Supertheman noted years ago, and @Ground Zero: has experienced too.

User:Weathervane13 - "Again, a libelous statement was inserted into this article by SJE" Please point out what was libelous after reading the citations?

This page was full of wholly fictional citations, for example the completely fabricated quote from "This Must Be The Place" about The Talking Heads (musical group) mentioning the 60 Minutes segment in which Steen appeared. A false quote was placed in the footnote, a passage that does not appear anywhere in the book. This is the passage and I attempted to engage Weathervane13 about it on his talk page in March, 2015: The 2001 hardcover, p. 152 reads as follows - David wrote nine of the albums eleven tracks. Two numbers came out of jamming. The first would be called "Life During Wartime." David's lyrics describe a Walker Percy-ish post-apocalyptic landscape where a revolutionary hides out in a deserted cemetery, surviving on peanut butter. "I wrote this in my loft on Seventh and Avenue A," David later said, "I was thinking about Baader-Meinhof, Patty Hearst, Tompkins Square. This is a song about living in Alphabet City. Weathervane13 reverted my edit and kept his at least once.

I also politely asked Weathervane13 to stop claiming I did not try to engage him, today, on his talk page.

The passage claiming that Steen wrote for TAP was all fiction and I verified it with Richard "Cheshire" Catalyst, the editor of TAP (Youth International Party magazine). The passage was not sourced at all and nothing has been shown that Steen was associated with the publication, irrespective of the editor not knowing of Steen. The same with some other magazines that were noted in the article.

Most of the 60 Minutes interview information was completely made up before I edited it. I have a copy of the interview from CBS on CD and would gladly post an image of the item if you like. I do not have license to post the segment, but anybody can order it and pay $35 like I did. What is quoted in that section is the entirety of Steens interview as aired, which is the same as what I quoted, and contains no "urging others to surrender" or whatever that fiction was. Mark Rudd never saw the show, we exchanged email about it. Must I supply that tool, or is the fact that what was in the passage verifiable false adequate reason to remove it?

The same holds true with everything else that I deleted. It was not referenced, or worse, it had footnotes to false links. Like one for the San Jose Mercury News archive.

I have engaged in this talk page and if Weathervane13 never bothered to address me directly, there is nothing I can do about that. I also asked for administrative help, but I did it here on the talk page. As you can see above, I tried to engage with previous editors too.

Also, the accusation of vandalism on the Weather Underground page is completely baseless. It amounts to the same thing that is being done on this page.

By-the-way, Weatherane13 is the Gmail user ID of an individual who represented himself to me as Steen.SteveJEsposito (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What is this if it is not vandalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Steen&diff=585846782&oldid=585846665 "10. ^ Bowman, David (November 26, 2001). This Must Be the Place: The Adventures of Talking Heads in the Twentieth Century (1st ed.). 10 East 53rd Street, 10022: Harper Collins Publishers. ISBN 0-380-97846-6</This song was a composite of the '60 Minutes' episode and Byrne's knowledge of other underground revolutionary student groups in Europe, such as Baader-Meinhof and Red Army Faction."

The book says nothing of the sort. I attempted to correct this, after looking at an actual copy of the book and photographing the pages in question. After correcting it, Weathervane13 reverted the edit and claimed vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Steen&diff=652896359&oldid=652793007

How about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Steen&diff=558616913&oldid=558565240 "Footnote 81: Jose Mercury-News.com/archives/1971/ "Hell's Angels Threaten to Kill Weathermen"" That paper does not have online archives older than 1985. I discovered it when I tried to verify the citation.

This user seems to claim "vandalism" whenever anybody removes wholly false information even if it is proven false.SteveJEsposito (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Krakatoa Ground Zero It appears through his response to you that Weathervane13 is Steen "Even removed a reference to my mother in the lede." Which might explain a but why the page was not very objective when User:GroundZero began editing and when I came across the page. As noted above, Weathervane13 is also the handle Steen uses on GMail.

From Weathervane13's user talk page: "There are multiple acts of vandalism, contiguous and non-contiguous. Consisting of extraneous information inserted, opinions and misinformation, by a wiki user Stephen Esposito, over the last 30 days." Yet he never points any of them out, even when asked directly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Weathervane13#Vandalism_to_Page_Matthew_Steen He then claims that I never tried to engage him. Not sure why my attempts were not seen on his talk page, or on the Matthew Steen talk page. As you can see from the page, I have been trying to engage with him since at least 24 March 2015.

Krakatoa You mentioned confusion as to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Steen&type=revision&diff=683402748&oldid=653111507 None of the material I deleted had anything to do with Steen, or it was unsourced. However, it appears that the note attached to the edit refers to a different edit where a different cluster of movies unrelated to Steen were removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Steen&diff=683402748&oldid=683402603

As I stated here on the talk page 25 April 2015, with no response from anybody, that I was going through the references and verifying them. In good faith, if I found a bad citation I replaced it with a citation needed tag for anybody to come along and provide the correct citation, or if I found the correct citation I would insert it. I left the citation needed tags for weeks, or months, and no correct citations ever appeared. You can see on the page what has remained.

For some reason, both Ground Zero (IIRC) and I have not been able to get Weathervane13 to produce any citations for his version of the 60 Minutes story. When either of us tried to correct it by deleting unsourced passages, or even by producing different information with sources, Weathervane13 has reverted them and claimed "vandalism." SteveJEsposito (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC) SteveJEsposito (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

For some reason I missed much of the first paragraph. This bit is interesting: "Further, extraneous quotes from 40 year old Congressional testimony was inserted to debase the value of the sections and wording previously contained in the BLP; there was no purpose served beyond the reference originally contained in the BLP." Sounds like Steen is talking about the transcript of his 60 Minutes interview. He sent me the PDF in email and I also found it online. It appears to be the only online copy of the show transcript. I verified it against my DVD copy of that show segment.

I made numerous attempts to track down broken and other links, as did editors before me. I also actually looked at the citations that worked, which usually turned out to be items that did not support Steen's narrative. Additionally, I found links to articles that were not linked and linked them, until I could verify if they were correct citations or not.

If Steen is talking about this as related to his lawsuit: "In June, 1972 Steen attempted to be an informant for the FBI about the February, 1970 San Francisco Park Station Bombing.[1][3]" he is mentioned 10 times in the first link as an informant and that article has been around since 2009.

As for this: "The user is associated with a "right-wing" Liberty Foundation, which seemingly has an axe to grind with former members of Weather Underground." I have no idea what he is talking about, especially if it is "right wing."

SteveJEsposito (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) SteveJEsposito (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I came to answer the request for help. After reading the above comments, here are my thoughts:

1. Weathervane13 should place the {{Connected contributor}} notice in the header of this talk page, as he has self-identified as Matthew Steen.
2. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Weathervane13 should read WP:AUTOPROB, which will give him a way to proceed with his issues with the article's content. This is a BLP, and he has the right to be treated neutrally. I encourage both editors to use the biographies of living persons noticeboard or another method of dispute resolution.
3. This article is under the scope of WP:ARBAP2, as are all the articles surrounding Weather Underground Organization. Please work out your differences in a civil manner without legal threats or edit warring.

Katie^talk 22:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:KrakatoaKatie. I am quite willing to continue editing within the limits of BLP, etc. Per the BLP guidelines all that unsourced information should be sourced or removed, but I will put it aside until other editors have provided their content. SteveJEsposito (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone came in and tried to link Steen to the Berkeley Tribe publication. Steen's name has not been found in the archive of The Berkeley Tribe and the talk page for the WikiPedia Berkeley Tribe page shows that it was vandalized by Weathervane13. SteveJEsposito (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

2/2/2016 Unsigned edits

I inadvertently made several edits to this page without signing them today. SteveJEsposito (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The edits consisted of deleting entries that were not cited. Citation needed tags had been in place for weeks and none appeared. This was after I tried to verify the information myself, with no positive results at all.

The Isla Vista Legal Defense Center exists under a new name, but there is no evidence that Steen was a part of its creation and no evidence that he was ever associated with it.

No proof that Steen was actually involved as a Treasurer (or any other capacity) of Students for Jerry Brown for President in 1976.

The "External Links" section had three links that have nothing to do with Steen. The ScottSteen.com link is no longer a functioning website, just a directory on a server.SteveJEsposito (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthew Steen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sbcc.edu/boardoftrustees/files/bot1986agendasminutes/9-11-86%20Minutes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC) SteveJEsposito (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone added a link to The Berkeley Tribe. Viewing the talk page for The Berkeley Tribe reveals that Weathervane13 (Steen) repeatedly tried to insert his name into that page as an editor, yet there is no supporting citation for this claim. The archive for the publication is here. Until a proper citation for Steen being on staff at that publication is produced, it should not be listed on a BLP page.SteveJEsposito (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph Four

Nothing in this paragraph is substantiated by anything: Steen attended Mission High School, growing up in the city's first post-World War II housing project. His father enlisted in the United States Navy shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, serving in the Pacific Theater, and as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force during the Korean hostilities. His younger brother Scott Steen is a jazz trumpeter and session man with Royal Crown Revue, recording on more than 20 albums. Twice married, he has two children by adoption, Kahlio Landy and Aukhia Latisha. Steen resides in the Mission District in San Francisco working as a community organizer and policy advocate on affordable housing, education, environmental, historic preservation, social justice, and anti-poverty issues

Added a citation needed tag at the end. Will monitor for updates.SteveJEsposito (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)SteveJEsposito (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Unverifiable Claims

A series of unverifiable claims and additions have been re-introduced by Weathervane13. Unless proper citations are provided soon, they will be deleted. Citations written by the author are not considered proper, anywhere. cc to GroundZero — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveJEsposito (talk • contribs) 12:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Before anybody again claims that deletions on the Matthew Steen page were done without consultation with Weathervane13, the source of the uncited material, please see his user page as well as this talk page.SteveJEsposito (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that citations are needed for these statements. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 04:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncited material from Weathervane13 has been removed again. Before anybody claims Weathervane13 has not been consulted, see his talk page and this talk page. Also review citation rules for Biography of a Living Person. cc Ground Zero SteveJEsposito (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Blank Categories and Odd Additions

User Ser Amantio di Nicolao added blank categories for no apparent reason. I am deleting them.SteveJEsposito (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Correction. Looks like Ser Amantio di Nicolao removed blank references, but described them as added. Nothing edited on my part.SteveJEsposito (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthew Steen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924201815/http://www.sbcc.cc.ca.us/boardoftrustees/ to http://sbcc.cc.ca.us/boardoftrustees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)