Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gary Weiss: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:50, 20 October 2007 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Archived: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 20:26, 20 October 2007 edit undoDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →Archived: agree with JzGNext edit →
Line 19: Line 19:
:Hi Guy, I wonder if your archiving was a good call here. Aside from a few snide remarks ("stop blowing smoke out your ass") and fanciful insinuations (i.e. that Cla68 was a Bagley representative) the debate was fairly productive, policy-focused (NPF, BLP, UNDUE), and forward-looking, and there seemed to be no (Bagley) meatpuppets in sight.--] 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC) :Hi Guy, I wonder if your archiving was a good call here. Aside from a few snide remarks ("stop blowing smoke out your ass") and fanciful insinuations (i.e. that Cla68 was a Bagley representative) the debate was fairly productive, policy-focused (NPF, BLP, UNDUE), and forward-looking, and there seemed to be no (Bagley) meatpuppets in sight.--] 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:: It's the "apart from" that was the problem. Feel free to resume the debate without the bits that require "apart from". <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC) :: It's the "apart from" that was the problem. Feel free to resume the debate without the bits that require "apart from". <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:::It was absolutely the right call. And my sysop tools are ready and waiting to enforce the list he provided. Proceed with legitimate references and encyclopedic discussion, or not at all. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:26, 20 October 2007

WikiProject iconChicago Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Archived

This is a complete mess. Seems to me the original call for the link to Overstock came from Piperdown, a blatant meatpuppet of Bagley, and it's virtually impossible to purge the dead hand of Bagley from the ill-tempered and serially WP:BLP violating debate on this page. So it's time to start again. And the rules are:

If anyone wants to bring a reliable source that discusses, in properly analytical terms, some additional content we can use for this article, they are most welcome. Blogs, opinion pieces and tittle-tattle on the web are not reliable or significant enough to overcome concerns, since we know Mr Weiss has been actively harassed in real life. Individuals active on websites where Bagley is active are recommended in the strongest possible terms to leave well alone, since an extremely dim view will be taken of any suspicion of editing by proxy on his behalf.

And one final thing: this is absolutely not the place to rehash arguments taking place elsewhere. If you can document them by reference to properly analytical debate by independent authorities in reliable sources, then we can talk, but what has gone on here in the past is not good enough. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I wonder if your archiving was a good call here. Aside from a few snide remarks ("stop blowing smoke out your ass") and fanciful insinuations (i.e. that Cla68 was a Bagley representative) the debate was fairly productive, policy-focused (NPF, BLP, UNDUE), and forward-looking, and there seemed to be no (Bagley) meatpuppets in sight.--G-Dett 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's the "apart from" that was the problem. Feel free to resume the debate without the bits that require "apart from". Guy (Help!) 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It was absolutely the right call. And my sysop tools are ready and waiting to enforce the list he provided. Proceed with legitimate references and encyclopedic discussion, or not at all. Durova 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories: