Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:02, 13 December 2016

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. Bernie44 (talk · contribs)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Biography portal This 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 Template:WikiProject History of photography

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 January 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Paid editing disclosure

This notice is to disclose that I, User:Bernie44, was paid to create this entry. Of course, I claim no ownership over it. Whether paid or not, I always aim to contribute positively to Misplaced Pages and to edit within Misplaced Pages's guidelines, with properly sourced, neutral, constructive edits. I hope my work is judged based on those standards.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation

Gotcha FreeRangeFrog. Let me revert my change on the court case and see if I can find a better source. It's the only one I can find to tie him in other than a Cleveland.com article about his tryst with some gal (where he got assaulted and where he sued for $1.5 million). seicer | talk | contribs 00:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Seicer: That's my only concern, the primary source. No problem if a secondary one can be found. This article has been the target of some bad-faith pointy editing in the past (thus the protection) and the subject has been in contact via OTRS as well. So it's important we keep everything factual and well sourced. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. Was there something significant that was deleted - even in talk? It must have been some time back. seicer | talk | contribs 00:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not by me, at least. Nothing in the logs other than protection. §FreeRangeFrog 00:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it further, this may be a good candidate to propose for deletion. Once his non-notable works were removed, I'm not sure what differentiates him from other explorers who have been in the news on occasion. seicer | talk | contribs 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Prolly a good idea. §FreeRangeFrog 22:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Career section

User:Bernie44 - In the section "Career", 3rd para, the last sentence currently reads - His work has been exhibited internationally in Munich, Milan and Paris, based on this source. However, this source says - His work is currently on display in Munich Germany...The Munich exhibit will next move on to Paris, then Milan and other cities, the locations of which are still being discussed. Here is another source from Amerikahaus which says his exhibit runs through March 2015. So technically, based on those two sources, his work has not yet been exhibited in Milan or Paris. Minor re-wording should fix this. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - went ahead and changed it with a new citation. seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

In the line about trespassing at Disney, the photos were clearly made while trespassing and the Wiki comment reflects this. However, the subject does not acknowledge that they were done this way, and claims the contrary in the article cited that they were taken legally with a drone or a high powered lens, a suggestion that is preposterous on its face. Perhaps this line should be removed.Jacobssteph (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps In 2016, Lawless photographed the abandoned River Country area, a secured section of Disney World, which resulted in him being banned from the theme park. Thoughts? - Ryk72 15:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that he has been banned from Disney either? The subject hasn't confirmed it. Could just be more puffery.

When I was researching this article I couldn't find evidence of the ban from Disney. The sources only mention him saying he was banned. Perhaps change the text to "Lawless claims his photography led Disney to ban him from all their properties." Manc1234 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

He's the definition of an unreliable first person source, which is why I'd leave it out altogether. Jacobssteph (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to accede to the removal. - Ryk72 22:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism to this page seems to be reoccurring problem for some users, namely user Jacobssteph, according to the users history has only made negative edits to the page called Seph Lawless and this started in 2015 with his failing attempt to remove sources to this article and have the article put up for deletion. Jacobssteph continues to do that with this recent edit removing, yet again, a source ignoring user Ryk72 and his more fair proposal of changing the verbiage accordingly. According to the statement above User Jacobssteph states he believes Seph to be an "unreliable source". That's a personal attack not holding true to what the article states. We ask the Misplaced Pages community to restore the original edit per Ryk72's proposal and include new source here:

Which clearly states the photographer was standing inside the abandoned park, hence trespassing, it should be duly noted that regardless of what kind of equipment he used to capture the images is irrelevant. Using even a drone constitutes trespassing in all 50 states as part as a federal mandate to protect business and private residences of a 'column of air up to 40 feet above the ground'. But if we go only on the what the source says than this new source clearly states the photographer was inside trespassing and also states he has been banned from the park. Misplaced Pages must go by what the source says not personal opinion by a user Jacobssteph. Once again this user continues to engage in vandalism of this page and should be watched closely. FrankMiller99 (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:FrankMiller99 and welcome to Misplaced Pages. First, please make sure you review our policies on personal attacks. User:Jacobssteph's comment that Seph is an unreliable source on himself is simply a statement about our policy on WP:Reliable Source. Also, I'm not sure who "we" is that is asking for the change to the article. Usernames should be used by individuals, not groups. That said, I don't see why we can't include a statement along the lines of "In 2016, Lawless reported to the press that he was banned from Disney for taking photographs of Disney's River Country." (and cite to Frank's link). meamemg (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't report that, because his own website says: "We are waiting to hear, if in fact, Seph has been banned from Disney World parks or not. It has been speculated that anyone that takes images of these places automatically does get banned, however, we have not received written confirmation of that. That could be because Disney is aware we took the images legally from a rented boat. This still hasn’t stopped people commenting and alleging that he has been banned. We also received several comments, emails and phone calls of people pretending to be Disney saying we have been banned, although until we have this in writing we can not comment on this issue at this time. It should also be duly noted that none of these images are for sale, so please don’t ask.": . I'd simply restore the mention that he photographed the abandoned River Camp, but without any mention of being banned. There are a number of articles online about the photos that do not mention that: . -- Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is Line even in this article when it's clearly a conflict of interest. The source is from the Huffington Post and the artist himself is a known Huffington Post journalist that's published several stories for the source that's listed. Subject's Huffington Post About Page FrankMiller99 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The artist is not a Huffington Post Journalist. He has a blog at the Huffington Post, which anyone can apply for. In fact, it states in their TOA that if you have a blog there you are not allowed to refer to yourself as being employed by them. Hardwired 16:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is known for having an entire platform based solely on contributors from celebrities, public figures amongst others. The Huffington Post does not had employees outside of paid editors, and much of their content is written, published and produced by contributors and Seph Lawless is a contributor stated clearly by the Huffington Post here (posted clearly in the top of this page) Furthermore, several of Lawless' stories have been on the Huffington Posts front page and have went viral. The fact that you claim anyone can become a contributor isn't true or it would be an open forum for anyone to sign up and use. It is not you must be hand picked by the Huffington Post. You also wrong in stating TOS states you can't say you are employed by the Huffington Post that only applies when appearing at events. This is clearly a conflict of interests to list a source in the article that clearly had hired the same artist to represent it's platform.FrankMiller99 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Frank, you are wrong. Anyone can become a contributor at the Huffington Post. All you need to do is enter your e-mail at the following address. It is an open forum that anyone can use. Huffington Post Contributor Sign Up Yes, some of Lawless's content on the Huffington Post has gone viral, and one of them was one he wrote, but the majority of it was written by actual Huffington Post Journalists. Hardwired 00:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwired50 (talk • contribs)

Hardwired50 you clearly are wrong. You posted a link that is an email signup page that is not an open forum to which anyone can contribute to the Huffington Post. That is common knowledge. You must be APPROVED to be a contributor they do NOT let anyone post to their news site. That notion is absurd and further review of your wiki account shows only 5 edits all to this page (negatively) your first edit was to vote to DELETE this Misplaced Pages page. Under the talk section of this page 'under reliable sources for names' you failed to source things which were removed by a wiki administrator. I'm not sure we can trust your judgement here based solely on your edits to this page and even arguments you had with wiki admins about proper sourcing. You were told by Misplaced Pages administrators to better educate yourself on sourcing issues and I'd recommend that once more.FrankMiller99 (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

FrankMiller99 Your comments indicate that you might have a conflict of interest on this article. You should perhaps review WP:CONFLICT. Jacobssteph (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to know how the Huffington post works and how they pick contributors like this artist Seph Lawless than read this: This is proof positive the Huffington post is NOT an open forum and never has been. You must be chosen or asked by the Huffington Post and since Seph Lawless has published several Huffington Post articles including updating the sourced Huffington post story listed on this Misplaced Pages article then that CLEARLY is a conflict of interest and should be removed. No Huffington Post story should be on here. Would you add the stories that he wrote for the Huffington Post? No because that's a conflict of interest. This artist has several thousand stories written about him doing a simply Google search of his name, so it makes no sense why the Huffington Post source needs to be in this wiki article for two reasons: First, get another source and/or secondly, the sentence (mentioning a correction to a news story which is a common thing) and the source itself isn't relevant to the article to begin with, thus it should be removed. FrankMiller99 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

FrankMiller99 You also might want to review WP:TUTORIAL, as you are new here are are formatting your comments incorrectly.Jacobssteph (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

JacobSteph I have never edited the existing Misplaced Pages page nor vandalized the page. According to your wiki history you have done both resulting is several failed attempts to vandalize this page with more than one wiki admin reprimanding you for your actions. Please remain unbiased and as the last wiki admin told you in September 2016 that read as follows: ' I'm not sure why you keep making claims about personal knowledge, in this case "outing", I'm not sure why you have no interest in Misplaced Pages except to disparage the subject of a single article, and I'm not sure why I'm not blocking you for disruptive editing. Go find something else to edit where you contribute in a positive manner to an article. Please. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)FrankMiller99 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

They no longer pick the contributors. Anyone can sign up. It was a fairly recent change, so you may have missed it. I've included two links that may clear things up for you. First is How to Get Published On the Huffington Post and a Contributor profile I created. Sample Contributor Profile There is no proof that the subject works for the Huffington Post beyond his own claims, so the Huffington Post links should remain on the page. And I've been editing wikipedia for years, but never bothered signing up for an account until I saw that this page was up for deletion. I still think that the subject is not notable, and the page should be deleted. However, I respect that the vote reached no consensus and that the article will remain. It should just be a factual article. Hardwired50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You clearly are posting links that prove nothing and nothing was recently changed at the Huffington post it is NOT an open forum for the public to publish new stories for its site. I'm not taking the artists claims at all I'm simply stating the factual evidence that he has wrote several published stories for the Huffington post. You clearly are being biased and according to wiki admins they have warned you and JacobSteph of continued disruption of this page but yet you continue to do so. Let the wiki community know the following:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Seph Lawless. . Your sole activity here on Misplaced Pages has been to disruptively edit on Seph Lawless. If you continue this behavior, you will be reported to administrators and blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Talk:Seph Lawless. Misplaced Pages operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Misplaced Pages's harassment policy. Misplaced Pages policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Misplaced Pages's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing.

Now you're just making things up. Perhaps a real admin can clear this up for us? Hardwired 04:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwired50 (talk • contribs)

More possible vandalism and removing of sourced contributions from the community from USER: JACOBSTEPH. According to his talk page his been warned several times to stop his disruptive behavior of this page. Removed four SOURCED articles that said Lawless was banned from Disney, but alleges it's not true. We go by what is reported not by what USER: JacobSteph thinks happened. Furthermore, his edit history shows a disturbing connection to this page. DanKopec (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Name

@Seicer: Please remove the citation for his real name - that is very eminently a primary source. Seriously, I'm not sure what it is about this person that generates so much disruption. §FreeRangeFrog 01:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Would citing his book be acceptable? seicer | talk | contribs 01:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

*The wiki requirements suggest that the Copyright Office should be permitted.

- Primary sources may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. Reading the link provides a very straight forward and self-evident descriptive statement that both references his book, his fake name and his real name.

- The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Misplaced Pages article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does. I think this is also very self-evident and requires no special knowledge or understanding.

- Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name. This is not an issue, because the copyright office website CLEARLY states the name of the book that Seph himself claims as his, his fake name of Seph Lawless, and his birth name of Joe Melendez. I don't see how there could be any confusion, as there might be from a drivers license or other primary source document.Jacobssteph (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Something that I just noted while looking through the (formerly) listed publications, I came across (Redacted). Would that be admissible? seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. §FreeRangeFrog 18:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Names without real reliable sources

Misplaced Pages is not the place to speculate about someone's birth name, and until and unless a truly reliable source appears discussing such matters, it is not suitable for discussion here or in the article. Please do not mention such names without real sourcing, such mentions will have to be oversighted and you may face sanctions under the BLP Discretionary Sanctions.--Guerillero | My Talk 08:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Seph mentioned his books in many of his interviews - how is it kosher to not even mention a link to his publications? There's no speculation. The source for his name is the copyright info for his book. Hardwired 15:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwired50 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS --Guerillero | My Talk 18:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

infobox

Where an article has as few facts as this one has, does anyone support retaining an infobox which is mainly a photo of the person and a link to his SPS website (which also furnishes as a cite for most of the claims as well)? The BLP is not much more than a stub for a pseudonymous person at best, and the infobox for such a short article is overkillish IMO. Collect (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's valuable in that it provides a photo, his birthplace and current residence place, years active, and occupation. I'm generally in favor of infoboxes unless there is a strong consensus otherwise. One reason this article is so short is that it was gutted a few years ago by someone with an axe to grind, which spiralled into a free-for-all. Softlavender (talk)

Inasmuch as all that information is found in the very short article proper - is the real estate taken up by a photograph of a pseudonymous person and links to his own website, which is noticeably used in the article, of significant value to readers? As for accusations of any "axe to grind" implicit or explicit, I assure you that I never even heard of this person before, thus have no conceivable biases at all, and find your raising of such a non-issue to be non-utile here. Collect (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I made no reference to or implication about you; I'm only explaining why the article is somewhat short. Whether you have heard of the person before, or whether he is pseudonymous (many persons in the arts are), is irrelevant. The only relevant thing here is whether there is consensus or not to remove the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Right now, 2/3 of the article is an outright advertisement for his works. I find this a tad high. Collect (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You think? I mean, he paid someone to write the article. seicer | talk | contribs 12:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And you gutted it repeatedly , removing citations/content from CNN , The Weather Channel , American Photo , ABC News , Fast Company , Complex , New York Daily News , and Fox 8 Cleveland . And after removing all of those citations (and content), you AfDed the article (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless) as being non-notable, and on the same day removed citations/content from Cleveland Scene , PetaPixel , Vice , and Slate . -- Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The AfD was per Talk discussion. Jacobssteph (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The AfD rationale was "Non notable live figure. An urban explorer with no credentials does not need a Misplaced Pages page, much like every other explorer. No notable books (with reliable ISBN numbers), other publications and experience": , a statement Seicer made after removing 61% of the aticle's text and 65% of its independent reliable-source citations. Softlavender (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"Independent" =/= reliable (subject is an unreliable first person source for just about everything written about him). Re: AfD FreeRangeFrog, who concurred with seicer, seemingly was aware of the edits and didn't express any concern at that time. It was not a unilateral action. Jacobssteph (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disney ban

One WP:SPA editor appears to be the lone objector to including him being banned from Disney. There are a number of highly WP:RS already in the article supporting this and I have added another. There appears to be no doubt whatsoever of this ban. If anyone wishes to remove it (yet again), please achieve consensus here first. Further removal without consensus will be considered WP:TE and WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hard block of yet another sock. seicer | talk | contribs 21:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Articles with connected contributors
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles