Talk:Steve Salerno
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
People being encouraged to vandalism of my page
[edit]I am the subject of this page, Steve Salerno. Could we please be on the lookout for this? How do I contact “the authorities” here? 2600:8801:27:8700:C133:131F:18DB:844A (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Twitter Controversy
[edit]Since the author has mentioned issues on Twitter, this might be the place to discuss that and to determine if the issues should be in the article itself.
On September 16, Salerno made tweets about his observations of young mothers paying more attention to their phones than their children.[1]
This received a good deal of criticism, and several individuals told him that this made them uncomfortable because they felt he shouldn’t be watching them. [2] [3] [4]
After two days, he made a thread on Twitter about how he felt young women should feel it was more creepy to have “biological males” in bathrooms with them than having him watch them in public parks. [5]Janers0217 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you can provide (contentious BLP quality) reliable sources for that, yes. But also keep in mind recentism, and the preternatural ability of modern mass media to emphasize conflict. Ovinus (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Would his Twitter account count as a reliable source for his own words? Janers0217 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's not sufficient alone. Otherwise it's being selective and likely undue. Ovinus (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, how is it being selective or undue? Janers0217 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Because reliable sources haven't (yet) taken note of it, and it is only being selected here because it's exciting, and I suppose because the subject mentioned it on an AfD page. As we all know, attention on Twitter does not imply importance. Ovinus (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, how is it being selective or undue? Janers0217 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's not sufficient alone. Otherwise it's being selective and likely undue. Ovinus (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Would his Twitter account count as a reliable source for his own words? Janers0217 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Twitter is not a reliable source. His account is not verified and therefore could be anyone, using his name and image making controversial tweets. Srt1494 (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- That’s a valid point. Maybe he should consider getting his account verified? Janers0217 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Weaponized deletion
[edit]The suggestion to delete this page may be part of a campaign of revenge against Steve Salerno. Do we have any defense against efforts to use Wikipedia edits as a culture war battlefield? 173.76.241.248 (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- It isn’t part of a campaign of revenge. It’s about a (potential) lack of notability. Janers0217 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Errors on listing.
[edit]I am the subject, Steve Salerno. My book SHAM was not a self-help book, as currently described in the listing. It is a critique of self-help. Big difference. 2600:8801:27:8700:C00C:61EB:4817:5290 (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. Ovinus (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Re Twitter controversy
[edit]The discussion under Twitter controversy is a severe mischaracterization of the original innocuous tweets and the libelous response to same; it is framed in a tendentious manner to reflect a highly oversimplified and inflammatory reading of a back snd forth that went on for much of two days. During that time unfounded and plainly libelous allegations were made about Salerno. It is highly improper to spin a thread that encompasses literally hundreds of tweets in this manner. 2600:8801:27:8700:C00C:61EB:4817:5290 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Mr. Salerno, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion of what was said by you on Twitter, given you are the one who repeatedly brought it up and (falsely) claimed it was the reason your Wikipedia was being reviewed. It seems like you want to talk about it, so have at it. Janers0217 (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Janers0217, I'd appreciate it if you'd tone it down. This is a pretty random article; before recently, it received ten views per day. Imagine the perspective of someone who's never edited. The article about you has a giant red bar above it, saying it's nominated for deletion, and concurrently you've been harassed—or at least publicly castigated—on Twitter and offline. BLP sets hard rules, but the spirit of BLP is also important: Minimize harm. Ovinus (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I will not tone it down, especially since he is casting aspersions against my character. You should check the tweets he’s claimed are harassment. Very few could be considered anything over mildly derogatory. If he thinks that constitutes harassment, he might consider walking a mile in most women’s shoes. Janers0217 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- I see. I'm unable to see the tweets (it says "These Tweets are protected"). Ovinus (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Try searching on Twitter with the search string “to:iwrotesham”. Janers0217 (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- I see. I'm unable to see the tweets (it says "These Tweets are protected"). Ovinus (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I will not tone it down, especially since he is casting aspersions against my character. You should check the tweets he’s claimed are harassment. Very few could be considered anything over mildly derogatory. If he thinks that constitutes harassment, he might consider walking a mile in most women’s shoes. Janers0217 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Janers0217, I'd appreciate it if you'd tone it down. This is a pretty random article; before recently, it received ten views per day. Imagine the perspective of someone who's never edited. The article about you has a giant red bar above it, saying it's nominated for deletion, and concurrently you've been harassed—or at least publicly castigated—on Twitter and offline. BLP sets hard rules, but the spirit of BLP is also important: Minimize harm. Ovinus (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Ongoing errors introduced
[edit]With the myriad changes in recent days have come errors introduced. (I don't know how to use the editor function.) The Mature Media Awards are not run under the auspices of AARP. It's a separate org that recognizes distinguished works for seniors. http://www.programsforelderly.com/awareness-national-mature-media-awards-senior-marketing-assisted-living-federation-of-america.php
Salerno's degree was in English, not lit. Minor in music. Seems so silly to source this change to a blog article by a former college teammate. 2600:8801:27:8700:189B:D85:DD5F:9CF8 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)