User talk:Patchyreynolds
Hi this is pmkucer i posted an edit on the Humane Society page. Thank you for reviewing it and editing it. Could you please tell me what I did not edit correctly/ why you removed my edit? I am a student working on editing wikipedia pages as an english class project. Pmkucer (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Ovitz
[edit]Hi - Regarding Ovitz entry, no objection to you're adding additional information but the weight and tone of what you are adding (all from an attack article from 2001) gives undue weight to one aspect of his career. Why draw that out, especially in such a negative light? One might refer to the relative valuation, or that it lost money, but to draw out such a horrible quote there seems attack oriented, especially in light of BLP. Weight applies to how one is quoted, as does NPOV... Anyhow wanted to reach out to you to discuss as colleagues as in reading your history you seem to give care and consideration to your entries... Let me know your thoughts, thanks... Wintertanager (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Wintertanager, Thanks for reaching out. Yes, I am indeed in the midst of a fuller re-write of the Ovitz entry from near the end of his CAA days through the end of AMG, having just finished a couple of books that touched on the era in detail. I understand your point regarding the overall weight of the article in regard to one quote, but find that often it's either bring them in one bit at a time (which shifts weight slightly from moment to moment) or dump a wholesale revision on the article (which I like to avoid). Feel free to revert for now if you prefer that latter option. My guess, however, is that the tone of a more complete entry, regardless of who writes it, will begin to shift toward framing Ovitz in a less complimentary light during this era. His departure from both CAA and AMG, after all, became the subject of widespread and prolonged attention in which few (Ovitz included) had much good to say about his treatment of colleagues and his management of his duties. He also launched and had to surrender what most seem to agree was a poorly designed and undercapitalized business. (Ovitz blames various figures in Hollywood for poisoning the well against his success.) What may balance all of this out is acknowledging and citing, as several articles do, that Eisner never created a position at Disney in which Ovitz had a reasonable chance of success. I don't know that the developing framing of Ovitz's business persona, seen by almost all commentators high-handed, can be helped in this regard, but know that the article will take on a fuller shape as it grows in length. Thoughts? Cheers. ThtrWrtr (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was a bit surprised that you reverted again before giving me a chance to reply to your concern. Again, the quote which you find framing the subject of the entry in a negative light is a self evaluation from the subject. If you can find a lot of material speaking well of Ovitz's tenure at AMG I welcome you to add it; there seems little there to support that minority view. I will, then, proceed with the fuller revision that fleshes out all of the issues that led to the widespread press coverage of Ovitz's fall from power and the collapse of AMG. ThtrWrtr (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi - Sorry for the surprise didn't intend that... However the quote you selected is extremely negative, suggesting underlying negative bias in the article: 'I didn’t kill anybody; I’m not a murderer... And they still hate me. Everyone." The widespread (and very dated) press coverage of Ovitz's fall from power is certainly worthy of coverage but has been given such incredibly negative spin on wikipedia in the past that the result was an attack article on a living person. We're supposed to be about cleaning that up. I've worked very hard on this article to get it to read as neutrally and encyclopedically as possible, without undue weight to any specific subject and yet while also covering the essential points of his career, positive and negative. I've also kept it pithy and brief, with the total weight of the article nicely balanced. It is possible to read more about these topics at length in many places from various sources (books et al which you refer to, all of whom are already sourced on his page); the point of the entry however is not to cover every subject comprehensively but to briefly summarize and point to a source for more. To once again focus extensively on negative issues violates the spirit of wikipedia living person biographies, particularly important for figures that have been the subject of controversy in the past. So please I hope you are as fair as possible - I've put a lot of work into how it currently reads. Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this, Wintertanager. Part of the issue, I think, lies in the wish to avoid negativity allowing an article to become so brief and undescriptive that it no longer provides a full picture of its subject. From almost every report, Ovitz's career was defined by six major aspects: 1) helping to build the dominant industry agency; 2) pioneering client packaging in the 1980s; 3) because of CAA's unprecedented power becoming, for a time, "the most powerful man in Hollywood;" 4) the short and tumultuous tenure at Disney; 5) the debacle with AMG; and 6) being at the center of countless problematic and poorly conducted relationships that led to him being widely pilloried in the Hollywood community. Adequately addressing several of these areas is impossible without engaging the ill will that Ovitz left in his wake during his career. Though I appreciate your evident work on the article, in its current version one would have little idea that Ovitz and Eisner had struggles from the first day at Disney; that Geffen worked against the success of AMG, and Ovitz blamed him for its downfall; that many in the industry, wounded by his self-admittedly inconsiderate use of his power while at CAA, tried to help foment and then celebrated, the collapse of AMG. Like it or not, Ovitz's treatment of and interaction with others and the perception that he had acted poorly strongly affected his career. There are countless sources on this. Because of this, a treatment of them is needed in his entry. WP articles are supposed to eschew gratuitous negativity in tone or saying negative things as a reflection solely of the editor's PoV; they're not supposed to avoid or tone down aspects of the subject that help provide a complete picture of that person's life and career in an effort to keep a wholly positive tone to the entry. (The entry also lacks, say, notice that Ovitz almost singlehandedly put together the team that created the Oscar-winning Rainman or that he brought an I.M.Pei masterpiece to L.A.]]) Encyclopedias do not, I think, simply "briefly summarize" and provide footnotes. If so, an article on the American Civil War could be roughly a paragraph long and be followed by a hundred external links. Rather, they seek to allow the reader a comprehensive treatment of the subject--not novel length, but comprehensive. (See one of my favorites, Winston Churchill.) To protect against entries turning into book-length autobiographies WP already has limits on size. Right now, however, Ovitz's article is so paired down and so intent on excluding anything negative that it fails in WP's mission. Finally, two last thoughts on sourcing. First, you condemn the use of the Vanity Fair article, in part, because it's a decade old. Yes, most of the sources having to do with this period will be articles and book from that period or immediately after. After his fall from power, Ovitz simply hasn't inspired the same degree of press attention as he did when CAA and AMG were in the headlines. If you have articles on goings-on at AMG in the early 2000s that have been written within the last eighteen months we should absolutely include them. (As well, I'd love to find sources that frame him in a more flattering light, but they're tough to come by. After all, the quote you keep reverting was Ovitz himself saying he treated people poorly and was hated.) Second, the weight of the article will necessarily shift as it develops. BLP demands the immediate removal of text that defames or is unsourced; it doesn't demand that at every moment the balance is perfect. Otherwise, every edit would have to constitute a full-scale revision. I made one change and was working on others when you asked me, "Are you doing more?" I replied I was, and yet then you reverted because of undue weight. Thus, I am now sandboxing a huge revision to the latter part of Ovitz's career that will have to be dumped into his entry without proceeding element by element. This is, to my mind, a less effective way of working collaboratively. Best, ThtrWrtr (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- You make good points. Obviously I don't think we can compare the American Civil War or Winston Churchill to Michael Ovitz in terms of encyclopedic weight, hence the relative brevity. If you wish to create a more comprehensive entry, it should cover all aspects of his career equally. I will object if the tacit language is negative, indicating author bias (you are admitting repeatedly your low and hardly neutral view of Ovitz) - everything from pulling quotes or article language that indicates author bias. What you call 'the debacle with AMG' which 'died a slow, ugly death' (not a very encyclopedic quote - there are more neutral ways to describe), for instance, another might called one failed business venture of an otherwise highly successful self-made entrepreneur. The primary objection to the Vanity Fair article is that it was an attack article - let's not make this wikipedia entry an attack entry. BLP demands a strict adherence to a NPOV, and for good reason. It is a myth that Ovitz has 'lost power' by the way, he's a major VC player, philanthropist, and one of the top art collectors in the world. See WSJ articles regarding his relationship with Andreessen's VC, etc. Anyhow I am sure we can collaborate to create something that contains more information but is framed fairly and in accordance with BLP.Wintertanager (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your continued dialogue on this. In terms of author bias, I was actually quoting again: the "slow, ugly death" quote was from the Vanity Fair piece and "debacle" was from a Variety article (actually, in reference to his Disney tenure--memory glitch). As to my personal view of Ovitz, it varies from one aspect of his life to another (e.g. I like his taste in art but not in architecture), but doesn't--I hope--play into this writing. Again, the gross tonnage of material written about him, most of the quotes from those who knew or worked with him, and even, as we've seen, many of his self-characterizations don't speak well of either the twilight of his Hollywood career or his treatment of others. While you might see the VF article as an "attack article" let's keep in mind that its larded with potential pull quotes from many of the major players in his career and helpful statistics. I can think of very little reason to excise anything that falls in either of those lines. My reference to Ovitz having "lost power" was about his power in Hollywood. Every lengthy profile I've found (ranging as widely as Forbes to NYT Magazine) makes exactly the same contention. I don't know that anyone has written that he holds anything more than the smallest fraction of influence he commanded when at CAA--indeed, most articles about the founding of AMG framed it as an attempt to regain a lost centrality. Nor have I seen anything that speaks of his prominence as a philanthropist or art collector as being on par with his former power in Hollywood. His advisement of Andreessen speaks to the influence of Ovitz's creation of CAA, but hardly to Ovitz's power or ability to exercise command at his former level. Also, as we move forward I think we're aided by properly sourced language that adequately reflects our sources. If nearly every full treatment of the failure of AMG uses terms such as "collapse" or "embarrassment" to describe Ovitz's attempt the article benefits by employing cited language that fully explicates the particular area. Otherwise, Ovitz's failure to take the reins of MCA and his loss of up to $200 m at AMG are simply both "failures," his involvement with Coca-Cola ads and his stunning reinvention of the role of an agency in Hollywood are both "successes." For this reason, the WP on Operation Eagle Claw describes the U.S.' mission as a "humiliating debacle," helpful in emphasizing the generally accepted magnitude of the failure and embarrassment. And this is an important issue as we more forward. BLP, as your rightly note, mandates NPoV, not a neutering of the sources so as to avoid presenting the generally held opinion of the subject. Watergate is thus referred to as a "scandal" rather than a "failed espionage attempt" or "unsuccessful public relations management campaign." I think we can do good work on this entry, but the tone of some sections may not be flattering to Ovitz simply because, at those points, general consensus is that he did not behave well, was not viewed well by others (in a way that had a substantial impact on his business or life), or was unsuccessful in his ventures. Additionally, I don't know that an entry "should cover all aspects of [a subject's] career equally." Rather, on WP they attempt to reflect the general scholarly and journalistic valuation of those areas in helping one to understand a subject. Thus, even though Bill Clinton has served as Governor of Arkansas or an AIDS relief advocate for longer periods than he was president, his entry is vastly weighted toward the coverage of what most consider to be the more significant part of his life and career. Ovitz's philanthropy and art collecting, at this point, don't appear generally held to be as significant as his experiences with CAA or AMG. Finally, in terms of the Winston Churchill vs. Michael Ovitz comparison, ideally all entries should cover as much relevant material as possible, not shortened because the figure is less historically important. Right now--God help us--Britney Spears' entry is actually longer than Henry V's. If only we knew more about his musical influences and torrid affairs with pop vocalists... Best. ThtrWrtr (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." etc. When we're pulling the most negative direct quotes from an attack article that defines sensationalist, titillating claims, tabloid, etc., then we're not adhering to NPOV or BLP. That you can think of no reason to excise - and in fact seem eager to include - the most salacious comments made about a controversial figure is confusing to me. We are supposed to be creating an encyclopedic account - quite different from the numerous hollywood gossip articles that have already been written and are accessible on the very page we're discussing. To draw that out in anything but a neutral tone warrants UNDUE, etc. In any case I've articulated the issues I have very, very clearly, all of which I think are within the spirit and goals of BLP. Wintertanager (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that were speaking about different things here. I'm not suggesting that the article be written in an overstated tabloid style. (If you have questions about my writing on controversial subjects, looking at You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International, an entry on which I recently did a large revision that necessitated addressing controversy, might help allay what I understand to be very real concerns for an entry on which you've invested a great deal of time.) There are, to my mind, two issues on Ovitz's entry whose amelioration might significantly aid the reader. First, we simply need more information. Simply stating that he "helped to negotiate" the Sony acquisition sale provides very little information about his full role to the reader (e.g., the usefulness of his familiarity with Japanese culture, that he was initially considered for the position of studio head, etc.) Second, we need an appreciation for how the personal relationships played a part in his business career. Right now, the omission of this stands a glaring hole to any one actually familiar with the history of the entertainment industry over the last forty years. I'm not suggesting anything along the lines of "You know who else called Ovitz a jerk?", but utilizing all the material from Ovitz and others to provide a true, full picture of his life. For example, right now the article, in essence, says: he left CAA for Disney, was fired, received a controversial severance package, founded AMG, and sold it for $12 m. What all sources (Ovitz included) agree happened, however is: Meyer, though acting as Ovitz's agent with Sony, surprised his partner by taking the Sony job instead; Ovitz, trying to reassure the younger agents, promised them he would not leave, though he was already negotiating with Disney; Ovitz left for Disney, leaving the agents whom he had just reassured, feeling betrayed (again, both parties say this--they just disagree on whether or not he actually behaved unethically); after being fired from Disney Ovitz missed being in the game, and founded AMG, largely with his own money; his former partners and co-workers still upset about his Disney move and the way he had acted as CAA chair, publicly announced (after Robin Williams left) that no CAA clients could work with AMG, starting a very public dispute; for a variety of reasons, Ovitz sold AMG, which was having problems, for $12m, a loss of at least $88 m and perhaps more. In terms of the subject's privacy, we're not talking about prying into his sex life or evaluating his abilities as a father--Ovitz himself (and countless others) have already said in multiple interviews that the personal animus others felt toward him played a role in AMG's difficulties. Why on earth would we exclude mention of relationship or conduct difficulties that, in many cases, both parties have publicly spoken of and acknowledge are important elements of the business developments? Again, I'm not speaking of an entirely negative article. Missing in the account above, of course are elements such as Eisner's apparent obstruction of Ovitz at Disney or the anger of some CAA clients (e.g., Sidney Pollack) at having CAA dictate that they must stay away from Ovitz. But right now you seem intent on scrubbing the entry of a significant industry figure from any documented, relevant mentions of german issues that may not show Ovitz in the best light. This is the very understatement (indeed, absence) of which BLP warns. I do appreciate our continued dialogue about this. I am finding it unwieldy, however--and against the spirit of collaborative editing--to try to wholly rewrite the entry at one go. Probably tomorrow I am going to begin incorporating new material into the entry. Please be aware that this will be a steady stream, meaning that the weight will be shifting as the article moves forward. Cheers. ThtrWrtr (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I quite agree a piece by piece edit makes more sense (an entire rewrite was your idea not mine!). The initial edit I undid I would undo again because it violates BLP, for all the reasons I listed when I did it and articulated here (when I immediately reached out to you). For the record I am absolutely, positively in favor of adding additional relevant information to the entry - fantastic - as long as we are adhering to the standards of BLP, NPOV, etc. (I do take some exception to your description of the existing version as 'scrubbed' - there are so many other places that need our attention when it comes to article 'stubs' etc. which this most certainly isn't - a pithy [elements of] style is harder than it looks!)... If we need to elevate any of the edits, let's do so in the genuine spirit of resolving what appear to be differences in BLP interpretation. Wintertanager (talk)
- I don't know that were speaking about different things here. I'm not suggesting that the article be written in an overstated tabloid style. (If you have questions about my writing on controversial subjects, looking at You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International, an entry on which I recently did a large revision that necessitated addressing controversy, might help allay what I understand to be very real concerns for an entry on which you've invested a great deal of time.) There are, to my mind, two issues on Ovitz's entry whose amelioration might significantly aid the reader. First, we simply need more information. Simply stating that he "helped to negotiate" the Sony acquisition sale provides very little information about his full role to the reader (e.g., the usefulness of his familiarity with Japanese culture, that he was initially considered for the position of studio head, etc.) Second, we need an appreciation for how the personal relationships played a part in his business career. Right now, the omission of this stands a glaring hole to any one actually familiar with the history of the entertainment industry over the last forty years. I'm not suggesting anything along the lines of "You know who else called Ovitz a jerk?", but utilizing all the material from Ovitz and others to provide a true, full picture of his life. For example, right now the article, in essence, says: he left CAA for Disney, was fired, received a controversial severance package, founded AMG, and sold it for $12 m. What all sources (Ovitz included) agree happened, however is: Meyer, though acting as Ovitz's agent with Sony, surprised his partner by taking the Sony job instead; Ovitz, trying to reassure the younger agents, promised them he would not leave, though he was already negotiating with Disney; Ovitz left for Disney, leaving the agents whom he had just reassured, feeling betrayed (again, both parties say this--they just disagree on whether or not he actually behaved unethically); after being fired from Disney Ovitz missed being in the game, and founded AMG, largely with his own money; his former partners and co-workers still upset about his Disney move and the way he had acted as CAA chair, publicly announced (after Robin Williams left) that no CAA clients could work with AMG, starting a very public dispute; for a variety of reasons, Ovitz sold AMG, which was having problems, for $12m, a loss of at least $88 m and perhaps more. In terms of the subject's privacy, we're not talking about prying into his sex life or evaluating his abilities as a father--Ovitz himself (and countless others) have already said in multiple interviews that the personal animus others felt toward him played a role in AMG's difficulties. Why on earth would we exclude mention of relationship or conduct difficulties that, in many cases, both parties have publicly spoken of and acknowledge are important elements of the business developments? Again, I'm not speaking of an entirely negative article. Missing in the account above, of course are elements such as Eisner's apparent obstruction of Ovitz at Disney or the anger of some CAA clients (e.g., Sidney Pollack) at having CAA dictate that they must stay away from Ovitz. But right now you seem intent on scrubbing the entry of a significant industry figure from any documented, relevant mentions of german issues that may not show Ovitz in the best light. This is the very understatement (indeed, absence) of which BLP warns. I do appreciate our continued dialogue about this. I am finding it unwieldy, however--and against the spirit of collaborative editing--to try to wholly rewrite the entry at one go. Probably tomorrow I am going to begin incorporating new material into the entry. Please be aware that this will be a steady stream, meaning that the weight will be shifting as the article moves forward. Cheers. ThtrWrtr (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." etc. When we're pulling the most negative direct quotes from an attack article that defines sensationalist, titillating claims, tabloid, etc., then we're not adhering to NPOV or BLP. That you can think of no reason to excise - and in fact seem eager to include - the most salacious comments made about a controversial figure is confusing to me. We are supposed to be creating an encyclopedic account - quite different from the numerous hollywood gossip articles that have already been written and are accessible on the very page we're discussing. To draw that out in anything but a neutral tone warrants UNDUE, etc. In any case I've articulated the issues I have very, very clearly, all of which I think are within the spirit and goals of BLP. Wintertanager (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your continued dialogue on this. In terms of author bias, I was actually quoting again: the "slow, ugly death" quote was from the Vanity Fair piece and "debacle" was from a Variety article (actually, in reference to his Disney tenure--memory glitch). As to my personal view of Ovitz, it varies from one aspect of his life to another (e.g. I like his taste in art but not in architecture), but doesn't--I hope--play into this writing. Again, the gross tonnage of material written about him, most of the quotes from those who knew or worked with him, and even, as we've seen, many of his self-characterizations don't speak well of either the twilight of his Hollywood career or his treatment of others. While you might see the VF article as an "attack article" let's keep in mind that its larded with potential pull quotes from many of the major players in his career and helpful statistics. I can think of very little reason to excise anything that falls in either of those lines. My reference to Ovitz having "lost power" was about his power in Hollywood. Every lengthy profile I've found (ranging as widely as Forbes to NYT Magazine) makes exactly the same contention. I don't know that anyone has written that he holds anything more than the smallest fraction of influence he commanded when at CAA--indeed, most articles about the founding of AMG framed it as an attempt to regain a lost centrality. Nor have I seen anything that speaks of his prominence as a philanthropist or art collector as being on par with his former power in Hollywood. His advisement of Andreessen speaks to the influence of Ovitz's creation of CAA, but hardly to Ovitz's power or ability to exercise command at his former level. Also, as we move forward I think we're aided by properly sourced language that adequately reflects our sources. If nearly every full treatment of the failure of AMG uses terms such as "collapse" or "embarrassment" to describe Ovitz's attempt the article benefits by employing cited language that fully explicates the particular area. Otherwise, Ovitz's failure to take the reins of MCA and his loss of up to $200 m at AMG are simply both "failures," his involvement with Coca-Cola ads and his stunning reinvention of the role of an agency in Hollywood are both "successes." For this reason, the WP on Operation Eagle Claw describes the U.S.' mission as a "humiliating debacle," helpful in emphasizing the generally accepted magnitude of the failure and embarrassment. And this is an important issue as we more forward. BLP, as your rightly note, mandates NPoV, not a neutering of the sources so as to avoid presenting the generally held opinion of the subject. Watergate is thus referred to as a "scandal" rather than a "failed espionage attempt" or "unsuccessful public relations management campaign." I think we can do good work on this entry, but the tone of some sections may not be flattering to Ovitz simply because, at those points, general consensus is that he did not behave well, was not viewed well by others (in a way that had a substantial impact on his business or life), or was unsuccessful in his ventures. Additionally, I don't know that an entry "should cover all aspects of [a subject's] career equally." Rather, on WP they attempt to reflect the general scholarly and journalistic valuation of those areas in helping one to understand a subject. Thus, even though Bill Clinton has served as Governor of Arkansas or an AIDS relief advocate for longer periods than he was president, his entry is vastly weighted toward the coverage of what most consider to be the more significant part of his life and career. Ovitz's philanthropy and art collecting, at this point, don't appear generally held to be as significant as his experiences with CAA or AMG. Finally, in terms of the Winston Churchill vs. Michael Ovitz comparison, ideally all entries should cover as much relevant material as possible, not shortened because the figure is less historically important. Right now--God help us--Britney Spears' entry is actually longer than Henry V's. If only we knew more about his musical influences and torrid affairs with pop vocalists... Best. ThtrWrtr (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Ratt
It's funny how you want to make a discussion center around POV and then interject three paragraphs worth of "Metallica is better than Ratt" on my talk page. Please stop POV'ing and making idle threats. If you wish to discuss this further, leave your personal email, telephone number, or home address. I find wikiwars to be uncivilized and unrefined. We are both human beings capable of rational thought. Hiding behind childish diatribes such as the one you posted in my talk page is no way to conduct business. Either be a man or don't bother interfering with my work again. Thank you kindly.
-H2C
Ummmmmm... no idea what you're speaking about. Think you might have left this on the wrong user page. Also, helpful if you use your signiture when leaving notes. --Patchyreynolds 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Rocky
[edit]Hello, can you add the link below under external links.
Mkil has been killing that page, you should revert anything he does.
Rocco Francis Marchegiano, better known as Rocky Marciano (September 1 1923 – August 31 1969), was an Italian American boxer. Rocky was the World Heavyweight Boxing Champion from September 23 1952 to November 30, 1956. Marciano remains the only undefeated/untied heavyweight champion in pro boxing history with 43 knock outs to his credit, an 88% KO rate.
Ok, this should be like it is above, mkil put april 27, but that is the day he proclaimed he will not fight anymore. Ok, imagine he died in october 1955, does that mean that's when his championship ends? No, by any means. The title was vacant, but in principal rocky was still champion until november 30 56, try to put it back, i mean, you are still champion, dead or alive if there is nobody to replace you.
And this was best version before these sick people reverted it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=105948716&oldid=105933274
Italian american, do we need that, or just american boxer? Do not argue or talk to mkil, the guy has tons of time on his hands and he wants things his way, be careful. Reply here, i will get back to you soon. take care.
- Feel free to ignore the above rant. This is just banned userBoxingWear continuing to make trouble by using random IPs to evade his block. If you need any more information about him, I'd be happy to provide it. MKil 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)MKil
This man will be banned soon, mkil has been causing huge problems, we promise full investigation of this individual, he has been destroying marciano page, and dates. Mkil has serious reverts problems, watch out, when all is fixed we can fix marciano page. mkil reverts, check his talk page, pathetic.
GoldCoastLawyer
[edit]I deleted them for a couple of reasons. They just do not serve a purpose for one. I recognize that they may seem hostile and are searchable on the net. I am migrating from that ID as so to grow and develop from a stage in my life that I do not wish to return to. Thanks for asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldcoastlawyer (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Emmer DWI
[edit]You do realize that you are incorporating your own spin onto this situation. The source clearly states he was given a ticket. I am pretty sure that during the early 80's DWI was a ticket offence. In anycase the source doesn't say he plead guilty or was convicted of anything other than pleading guilty to the careless driving. I suggest we work together to provide a NPOV version, just don't present your own spin onto what the sources say. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment
[edit]I saw this comment over at Scott Mac's user page It only takes a few moments usually, and seems unfair, really, to force all of that work over to others. - the onus on sourcing is on the person adding material not the person removing it. If a user comes across unsourced or poorly sourced material in a BLP, then they should remove it. It would be nice if they found a better source but there is no requirement for them to do so and if they don't have the time, it's best they simply remove the material. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I know there's no requirement. My point was that it's all too easy to buzz through and cut unsupported material that is nevertheless factually correct and helpful to the article. The quote from Rep. Waters is a good example of this. She clearly said it (the You Tube link allowed one to observe her speaking it), and it helps round out her positions in regard to energy policy. As there was little doubt to either of these aspects--only the cite, after all, was the issue--it would have been helpful had Scott Mac, recognizing the core issue, taken the extra two minutes to source the quote. I don't know him at all as an editor, of course, and so this is no comment on him, but I will say that lately I've gotten a little weary of folks who rack up thousand of edits by reverting and cutting without ever engaging in the actual work of researching, writing, and sourcing. It forces the more time-consuming part of the work on to the rest of us. Time, which you address an issue, is an factor for all of us on a volunteer enterprise such as this. (I should be writing a seminar syllabus right now.) In the end, unless the material in a BLP is clearly demeaning and potentially libelous, I think Editor X's time would be best and most equitably invested in sourcing two or three missing cites rather than reverting and cutting two-dozen across different entries. (Forgive the cynical tone. Is it possible to have had a long day before noon? Oy...) ThtrWrtr (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Pow! Possibly click.
[edit]And that is the sound of someone shooting off their own foot. Being right is always very satisfying but sometimes brings with it a cost. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]
|
The BLP Barnstar | |
| For sourcing Anita Bryant to counteract hasty and ill-advised deletion of content.Milowent • talkblp-r 22:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
Kris Benson Edit
[edit]I am in a bit of a quandary about the edit I made to the article. I don't know how to source the info. I am have intimate, firsthand knowledge of all of the events and the people as I am Anna's uncle on the maternal side. There is quite a bit of information about Anna's past that has never been made public. I am working to document her involvement in a murder (actually, it was ruled manslaughter on appeal); she was a witness. Once I get the case file with her testimony and the facts surrounding her involvement, I guess I'll need to make it public somewhere. I would appreciate any advice you can offer. I have a user page.
Editor993 (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You Can Run quote
[edit]Expanding the quote provides the man's reason why he was praying "in Jesus' name," so yes, it clarifies it. Chopping his statement pretty much in half -- effectively making it a quote-mine -- makes it confusing and disrupts its own flow. Honestly, when quoting people on Wikipedia, it's far, far better to accurately quote them than worry about the insignificant flow of the WP article. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts on this. Three things in response... First, it is not inaccurate to present only part of a quote if the segment presented does not change the overall meaning of the quotation. E.g., "...Not to be. That is the question" from Hamlet would violate this rule. One would not, however, need to block quote the entire soliloquy to establish for the reader that Hamlet was contemplating suicide. Truncating the YCRBYCHI quote in question does not alter the meaning, but instead pares it to the point at hand: he came under criticism for implying Obama was not Christian. Second, the flow of an encyclopedia article is not "insignificant;" it's what makes it readable. Fluidly integrating quotes into the central body of the article, rather than setting them aside continually in blocks, is one of the chief ways of doing this. Otherwise, we end up with, "Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural, said: [insert long chunk of speech here]." Our job as editors is to distill and integrate larger sources into readable articles. Third, the quote you restored adds almost an entire paragraph simply to highlight the fact that the prayer was intended for Jesus, which is, to my mind, a fair and common sense assumption of a prayer offered by a Christian minister. Any reason why it shouldn't once again be truncated? Cheers. ThtrWrtr (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Patchyreynolds, The You Can Run Article Mentions a Principal Packet, which does not explain the ministry's aim to evangelize. Is it okay to use quotes from the packet since the writer of the article shows the principal packet in his story? (Teardrop22) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.217.114 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Great idea. That's an excellent primary source for the structure of the program. I think, though, that we need to be careful about a couple of elements in incorporating material from the packet. First, it's important to keep in mind that it's a promotional tool; what the band says it's about or will do may often be quite different from what occurs at the assembly or with the ministry. Obviously, for example, the ministry doesn't mention the times it's been asked to leave schools or complaints about traumatized students. Second, we probably can't use the quotes from students in the packet as the only thing we have to go on is a first name and a state provided in an advertisement. That said, it looks like a great resource for fleshing out the structure of the assemblies. ThtrWrtr (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Christian Bale talk page
[edit]Can you please explain why you reverted my removal of negative unsourced claims from the Talk:Christian Bale? You may not be aware, but WP:BLP applies on all pages, including talk pages. If the user had given even a single source that was even slightly reliable, I could see keeping it there, as it could be considered an attempt to improve the article. However, since the claim was literally of the form "I remember reading somewhere", followed by an extremely negative claim of illegal acts, I'm pretty concerned about keeping that on the page. If someone wants to add a comment later with a source, that would be fine, but WP:BLP requires that we protect living people from unsourced negative claims. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for writing. If you look at my revision I added the source. Somehow my edit summary explaining that didn't save. Cheers. ThtrWrtr (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I didn't notice that; just the revert. I've responded at the talk page about my opinion that the info shouldn't go in the article, though I don't think we need to scrub it off the talk page in this case (probably). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: Frank Derabont
[edit]I think we should probably stop reverting each other. I am we are both at three edits apiece, and I a guessing things might get unleasant for both if us if we cannot us the talk page instead of tryng to shove our opinion down the other's throat.
In point of fact, if something is added to the article that is confusing, it is up to us to clarify - simple wikilinking doesn't beat concise language. As well, in teh matter of a BLP, accidents of language which unintentionally disparage the article's subject is to be avoided at all costs. I've psted in article discussion my reply. Let's continue to work there and fond a solution. If you wish, look for some assistance in explaining why BLPs are to be treated very carefully. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Quad Cities
[edit]Patchy, could you swing by Quad Cities and tell me if the new distribution of information meets your expectations? HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International
[edit]I am posting this to you here because I really don't have the time or energy to involve myself in an edit war, so really wanted to find others who share my concerns that this article is deviating from the NPOV.
We both had a hand in editing the (let's say) theological qualifications of Bradlee Dean. Various contributors, including unregistered editor 208.84.172.2 has repeatedly and consistently restored the title "ordained minister" and deleted paragraphs critical of YCRBYCHI and replaced it with self-serving material which (presumably) is by Bradlee Dean, one of his associates or lawyers... I removed the title "ordained minister" and replaced it with "self-styled minister" which I believe is an fair and impartial (and common) description for people who, like Bradless Dean, set-up their own church to promote a political or lifestyle point of view. I think most understand that "self-styled" is not a point of view qualification of the honorific "minister" but rather a factual observation that such an individual has not conscientiously followed a study of theology nor has been ordained by a recognized and respected elder of religion (typically a bishop). There is no information that I could find to suggest that Bradlee Dean ever followed any formal study of theology, nor (it seems) was there any credible ordination ceremony under any recognized religion. Further, if you listen to any of his copious on-line "sermons" these seem much more political speeches with little or no enlightened reference to any biblical texts.
I took a look at the edit history for 208.84.172.2 here: Special:Contributions/208.84.172.2 and you will see all but one concern YCRBYCHI. The only other story this user edited was the add a video news story to the page Matthew Shepard that made the point that his death was a simple robbery that ended in murder, and not related in any way to the general belief that his death was a result of a gay bashing. This posting at least, suggests that 208.84.172.2 is, at least, homophobic. Furthermore, YCRBYCHI has been declared by The Southern Poverty Law Center designated the ministry an anti-gay hate group in March 2012. These two observations, together with the fact that every single edit by 208.84.172.2 on the YCRBYCHI page is either to delete other contributions that are or could be seen as negative in regard to YCRBYCHI and/or to add (sometimes dubious, at least un-cited) supportive commentary about YCRBYCHI and Bradless Dean.
I have now found several, some sizable, chunks of text that have been (apparently arbitrarily) deleted from the YCRBYCHI so as to leave me in very serious doubt about the veracity and impartiality of the information on the page.
In summary, I am tempted to think that, at the very least, the page should be locked-down for editing only by long-standing editors and possibly also to form a posse to review the past edits over (say) the past six-months to a years, to ensure that we have no allowed material information to be flushed down the digital drains...
Enquire (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Enquire, thanks for your thoughts on this. I think you're right that there are two issues: addressing the appellation "minister" in regards to Dean, and the changes in the page over the last few months. In regard to the first, I believe I take the middle ground between your position and that of the anonymous editor (aka Teardrop22). Dean, I would argue, is indeed a minister: he preaches, conducts worship services, evangelizes, etc. He may or may not have received ordination--my guess is that he has, but through some par boiled non-traditional means--but that doesn't have much to do with being able to accurately refer to him as being a minister, a term that, unlike "priest," has traditionally been applied to a far broader array of persons acting on the part of a faith; after all, that's why the desire to further legitimize the term with the modifier "ordained" is so often present. Think of it as akin to someone renting a building, opening an educational center for children, and serving as instructor for classes. Definitionally, that person is a teacher--not a "licensed teacher" or "certified teacher," perhaps, but a teacher all the same. One no more needs to be licensed to be a teacher than one does ordained to be a minister. As soon as we begin referring to that person as a "self-styled teacher" I think we begin to insert our own PoV into the matter, implying, "Well, HE claims he's a teacher, but..." Dean works professionally as a minister, is regarded by others as a minister, and operates a ministry. I think we're on good ground calling him that, but oppose affirming his ordination until more verifiable data exists. As to the second matter, yes, I'm concerned about the slippage of the page and have a wary eye on edits by the anonymous user. I don't know that we've reached the need for semi-protected status yet, but certainly wouldn't oppose that move if others felt strongly about it. We certainly should go back and restore any needed text that's been whittled away. ThtrWrtr (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Patchyreynolds. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)