| Revision as of 02:39, 5 July 2007 editNard the Bard (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,858 edits →unreliable tag: unsigned← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:12, 5 July 2007 edit undoMGodwin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users552 edits →unreliable tagNext edit → | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| ::::In point, ] says 'should be carefully sourced as appropriate'; I suspect this is based on the idea that it 'should be capable of standing alone'; but it's actually encouraged to be cited if needed. --] 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | ::::In point, ] says 'should be carefully sourced as appropriate'; I suspect this is based on the idea that it 'should be capable of standing alone'; but it's actually encouraged to be cited if needed. --] 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Uh, I haven't intentionally removed any citations, so if I did it's my mistake. But I added the inline citation tags (even though I agree they are disfiguring) because David Gerard objected to pointing out that much of the biographical assertions in the article were unreferenced with an <nowiki>{{unreliable}}</nowiki> tag. Whichever we do, it needs to be pointed out that a large amount of factua assertions are uncited in the article, especially in the light of ] editing his own bio. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | :::::Uh, I haven't intentionally removed any citations, so if I did it's my mistake. But I added the inline citation tags (even though I agree they are disfiguring) because David Gerard objected to pointing out that much of the biographical assertions in the article were unreferenced with an <nowiki>{{unreliable}}</nowiki> tag. Whichever we do, it needs to be pointed out that a large amount of factua assertions are uncited in the article, especially in the light of ] editing his own bio. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Dear VanTucky, I think it's pretty well-established that the edits to this article about me that were complained about had to do with my removal of a factually inaccurate statement in the original stub. (It was stated that I had attended a conference that in fact I was too ill to attend. My correction of that error was deemed to be consistent with then-current Misplaced Pages policy. As a Wikipedian myself, it seemed appropriate to remove a false statement of fact.) I did not originate this article. I did not decide whether it was worth of inclusion. Nevertheless, so far as I can tell, what appears in the current article is factually accurate. If there are particular statements that you believe are false, please identify them so that they can be corrected and/or removed. As far as I can tell, literally every sentence in the article is documentable by some source or other, although not all are Web-based sources. I'm looking forward to your constructive criticism and to your personal commitment to improving the quality of this article. I hope to learn a lot from you. ] 03:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Probably best for people who like to add tags to get some practice doing research. One good place for VanTucky to start would be to actually read the external links and read the actual books and articles cited. This of course might require actual labor. | Probably best for people who like to add tags to get some practice doing research. One good place for VanTucky to start would be to actually read the external links and read the actual books and articles cited. This of course might require actual labor. | ||
Revision as of 03:12, 5 July 2007
 | On JUL-04-2007, Mike Godwin was linked from slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
 | United States: Texas Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
User:Mikegodwin editing this page
Mr. Godwin, it is inappropriate for you to edit an article about yourself. Please do not remove content because you disagree or don't approve of listing it here. This is not your user page. - Tεxτurε 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's certainly not a Misplaced Pages policy, although creating articles about yourself is discouraged (while not prohibited either). Even members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors seem to edit the articles about themselves. Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Mikegodwin! --Grouse 19:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Texture apparently has a problem with my correcting the mistaken impression that I hosted a panel at H2K2. I was booked to host that panel, but because of scheduling problems couldn't attend. --Mike
- Would it be better if Mike posted suggested corrections to this Talk page and asked somebody else to do the edits for him? I don't have any problem with Mike's edits, but if you allow it to happen then you end up with the current problem of politicians replaced well written articles with their own sickeningly sycophantic drivel. Although I suppose any such policy could draw a distinction between fixing uncontroversial verifiable facts and the politicians just removing uncontroversial verifiable facts that they don't want publicised, such as their voting record. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 13:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's why the wiki-gods created reverts. If for some reason there were a page about you that had out-right factual errors, why should you not fix the errors? I see no difference in a person editing details of his own life and a person editing details of an entry in which they have any other form of interest.--Smallwhitelight 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Would it be better if Mike posted suggested corrections to this Talk page and asked somebody else to do the edits for him? I don't have any problem with Mike's edits, but if you allow it to happen then you end up with the current problem of politicians replaced well written articles with their own sickeningly sycophantic drivel. Although I suppose any such policy could draw a distinction between fixing uncontroversial verifiable facts and the politicians just removing uncontroversial verifiable facts that they don't want publicised, such as their voting record. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 13:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Texture apparently has a problem with my correcting the mistaken impression that I hosted a panel at H2K2. I was booked to host that panel, but because of scheduling problems couldn't attend. --Mike
Inappropriate editing?
(Copied from User talk:Mikegodwin)
It appears you are claiming to be Mike Godwin and editing Godwin's law. If you are Mike Godwin then it is inappropriate for you to be editing content related to yourself. If you are not, then please cease pretending to be Mr. Godwin. - Tεxτurε 16:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Texture, would you please cite the Misplaced Pages policy you are referring to which states that it is inappropriate for a user to edit content to which they are personally related? I was not aware of such a policy. Hall Monitor 15:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the Wiki guideline he's referring to is Misplaced Pages:Autobiography. Basically it discourages you from writing or significantly editing articles about yourself, since it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about yourself. Of course, you can edit clear cut mistakes and typos, etc, but otherwise it's better to talk about your suggested changes in your article's talk page and let independent editors handle implementing those suggestions in the actual article itself. Dugwiki 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Except that it wasn't actually a guideline more than a year ago when that claim was made. Why bring this up now anyway? I think this talk page may need a cleanup. Grouse 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the Wiki guideline he's referring to is Misplaced Pages:Autobiography. Basically it discourages you from writing or significantly editing articles about yourself, since it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about yourself. Of course, you can edit clear cut mistakes and typos, etc, but otherwise it's better to talk about your suggested changes in your article's talk page and let independent editors handle implementing those suggestions in the actual article itself. Dugwiki 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Dispute with Larvatus
This page is being repeatedly vandalized by an anonymous user posting from IP address 68.49.2.164 removing information supported by public Usenet record. Larvatus 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
- The article is still being vandalized by the aforementioned anonymous user posting from IP address 68.49.2.164, now extending his or her censorship efforts to this discussion page. Larvatus 05:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
- Anonymous vandalism is ongoing with no attempts at justifying the removal of documented information. This cowardly behavior pattern is strongly reminiscent of the titular subject in the referenced incident. Administrative assistance is welcome. Larvatus 21:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
If Mike Godwin is notable, his entitlement to public attention is due to his Usenet presence. His career as a tergiversating duellist is well attested in that venue. The referenced public record of his Usenet posts includes notice of Godwin's own escalation of the imbroglio into the pages of The Wall Street Journal. Godwin's effort at promoting himself as an Internet peacekeeper deserves to be commemorated here. Larvatus 02:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
- These comments are highly inappropriate. Misplaced Pages is not a place for personal attacks.
- As for the substance of your claim, remember that Misplaced Pages is not for original research. A Google search is not proof of anything. The referenced Wall Street Journal article only contains a quote from Mike Godwin which does not concur with your version of events. Not that Misplaced Pages is an appropriate place for this he-said, she-said kind of thing. --Grouse 08:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I defer to the notice of impropriety and extend apologies to all concerned parties. I have replaced the offending epithets with a neutral description of the subject matter at issue.
- Thanks for making Misplaced Pages a more civil place. --Grouse 18:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- As to the substance, a Google Groups search is 99% dispositive in matters pertaining to Usenet celebrity. It does not represent original research, but rather comprises the matter at issue. This is owed to the undisputed fact that the article under discussion is predominantly dedicated to Mike Godwin's Usenet persona. I contend that my contribution is an accurate and neutral summary of the referenced events. Nevertheless, in the interests of impartiality, instead of reverting your edits, I am inviting any disinterested third party to evaluate the subject matter objectively. Larvatus 13:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
It's unclear why "larvatus" is trying to turn this biographical stub into a larvatus-centric vanity page. It seems to be the case that there's already a vanity-page entry for "larvatus" on wikipedia, largely dedicated, apparently, to his stalking of his ex-girlfriend. Probably that page should be marked for deletion, since it violates Misplaced Pages's policies under a range of criteria. In any case, MODERATOR ATTENTION IS INVITED regarding "larvatus" and his frequent attempts to insert himself into this page.
It is a base slur to say that the "larvatus" entry in Misplaced Pages is a vanity page, given that the discussion of my exploits on that page is an important entry in any relevant encyclopedia. Similarly, it is vile of Godwin and/or his allies to assert that my relationship with Erin Zhu was anything other than holy. Finally, given the baseness of Godwin, I believe I should be exempted from the three-reversion rule. Michael Zeleny
- Note: Michael Zeleny is an impersonator of User:Larvatus. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I confirm that the party deceptively registered as Misplaced Pages User:MichaelZeleny has nothing to do with me, Michael Zeleny. Larvatus 07:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
- If true, this is not appropriate behavior either. You guys need a timeout. --Grouse 08:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism Alert
This page has been vandalized by MCB and Calton operating in tandem. They deleted information about Mr. Godwin's elite undergraduate program and his Well membership. (Personal attack removed) --RichardBennett 10:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
unreliable tag
Is there not a large amount of biographical information and claims that are unverified? Yes. So don't remove a tag calling for more citations. VanTucky 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- If there's something you consider problematic, drive-by tagging is far inferior to actually flagging the problems on the talk page (I removed the tag because you hadn't), or even, ooh, looking up stuff on him and adding to the article - David Gerard 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I flagged the entirety of the article because most of it is just the bio section anyway, and there would be so many fact tags it would be absurd. But if that is the way you want it... VanTucky 19:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- We have some people removing citations and others inserting lots of citation-needed tags. :-) VT, it's best not to add so many tags, as it's very disfiguring. You could have a look around yourself to find references, then let us know if there's anything you can't find support for. Tlesher, it's best to leave that citation in the lead where it's used after the first reference to the Wikimedia appointment, otherwise we'll have another fact tag added shortly; WP:LEAD says nothing about exceptions for leads. SlimVirgin 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- In point, WP:LEAD says 'should be carefully sourced as appropriate'; I suspect this is based on the idea that it 'should be capable of standing alone'; but it's actually encouraged to be cited if needed. --Thespian 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, I haven't intentionally removed any citations, so if I did it's my mistake. But I added the inline citation tags (even though I agree they are disfiguring) because David Gerard objected to pointing out that much of the biographical assertions in the article were unreferenced with an {{unreliable}} tag. Whichever we do, it needs to be pointed out that a large amount of factua assertions are uncited in the article, especially in the light of User:Mikegodwin editing his own bio. VanTucky 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- In point, WP:LEAD says 'should be carefully sourced as appropriate'; I suspect this is based on the idea that it 'should be capable of standing alone'; but it's actually encouraged to be cited if needed. --Thespian 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- We have some people removing citations and others inserting lots of citation-needed tags. :-) VT, it's best not to add so many tags, as it's very disfiguring. You could have a look around yourself to find references, then let us know if there's anything you can't find support for. Tlesher, it's best to leave that citation in the lead where it's used after the first reference to the Wikimedia appointment, otherwise we'll have another fact tag added shortly; WP:LEAD says nothing about exceptions for leads. SlimVirgin 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear VanTucky, I think it's pretty well-established that the edits to this article about me that were complained about had to do with my removal of a factually inaccurate statement in the original stub. (It was stated that I had attended a conference that in fact I was too ill to attend. My correction of that error was deemed to be consistent with then-current Misplaced Pages policy. As a Wikipedian myself, it seemed appropriate to remove a false statement of fact.) I did not originate this article. I did not decide whether it was worth of inclusion. Nevertheless, so far as I can tell, what appears in the current article is factually accurate. If there are particular statements that you believe are false, please identify them so that they can be corrected and/or removed. As far as I can tell, literally every sentence in the article is documentable by some source or other, although not all are Web-based sources. I'm looking forward to your constructive criticism and to your personal commitment to improving the quality of this article. I hope to learn a lot from you. MikeGodwin 03:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably best for people who like to add tags to get some practice doing research. One good place for VanTucky to start would be to actually read the external links and read the actual books and articles cited. This of course might require actual labor.
- Please remember to sign your talk posts with four tildes (~).
- External links are not properly cited footnotes to specific assertions of biographical facts. Read WP:CITE. There are uncited claims in the article, thus the tag saying so is correct. VanTucky 02:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably best for you to actually research a subject before making pronouncements about it, VanTucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.160.219 (talk • contribs)
American Lawyer
This is silly, but.
American Lawyer has a seriously broken website, and eventually, I just went outside and searched their site from google, producing this.
It proves that he did columns for American Lawyer, but it's actually pretty useless, as both of those pages just give a Title and 2 lines, and the one that says 'read online' leads to a horrendously broken page. So while the proof that he was a columnist is there, it'd actually be a serious disservice to link to that. Opinions? --Thespian 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories:- Articles linked from high traffic sites
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Texas articles
- Unknown-importance Texas articles
- WikiProject Texas articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Articles edited by connected contributors