Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seicer (talk | contribs) at 12:57, 15 July 2016 (→infobox: Duh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

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