User talk:Eurytemora

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Eurytemora, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Gerald Posner. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! THF (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Posner

Welcome to Wikipedia: just wanted to give you a couple of quick pointers. First, in articles about living people, we try not to cite to blogs unless absolutely necessary; it's a very firm policy to reduce the risk of libeling someone. Second, from your talk page comments, you seem to be tangentially involved in the Gerald Posner plagiarism controversy; as such, please review the conflict of interest policies before editing the encyclopedia to include material about yourself, though you're welcome to suggest edits on the talk page of the article. Hope you stick around, because there are a lot of articles that need a lot of improvement. Best wishes, THF (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re plagiarism

Compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Liberty_League&direction=next&oldid=156894417

with the later-published

http://books.google.com/books?id=T1_tElpa2x0C&pg=PR23&dq=prescott+bush+%22liberty+league%22

What's especially shocking about this is that the Wikipedia article that was plagiarized was apparently wildly inaccurate: I see no evidence that Prescott Bush ever had anything to do with the Liberty League -- indeed, it was in looking for such information that I stumbled across the plagiarism. I emailed Barrow multiple times about this, and never got a response, and the one reporter I spoke to wasn't interested, and I've let it drop, but this seems to be a subject that you care about greatly and have had success in getting attention. THF (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posner

I gave him a warning on his talk page. We'll see what happens.—Chowbok ☠ 07:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eurytemora, thanks for responding on this Posner controversy. I'm new as you are, and am just in the process of picking up on the core principles of Wikipedia. I think you're basically correct in your vigilence, though in fairness I'd like to see "Miamiskull," no matter who he is, provide some input into the process. I want to go back to the article itself. I think it's OK but that the wording needs to be more evenhanded. As written now it leans too heavily toward skepticism. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eurytemora. You have new messages at CheeseStakeholder's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Posner 2

Hi. Thanks for your work on Gerald Posner. But I'd like to give you a friendly reminder about signing your comments on talk pages. Sigs make talk pages more clear. You can sign with four tildes. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is confusing. Somehow your edit includes comments from another editor. Would you clarify? Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, sometimes we all forget, and I realize that there's a lot to get used to. Please let me know if you have questions about anything. Maurreen (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realize now that it's my mistake.

I misread this: "The COI edits are apparently continuing - despite reversions and polite comments at the Miamiskull talk page (e.g. “Hello. Miamiskull. I'd suggest stopping by ‘Talk:Gerald Posner’ if you have any concerns regarding the article. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2010”)."

At the time, I thought "The COI edits are apparently continuing - despite reversions and polite comments at the Miamiskull talk page" was from CheeseStakeholder.

Again, sorry. Maybe it's time for me to qo to sleep. Happy editing. Maurreen (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posner3

I think you're raising some good points on the Posner article, including the "Miamiskull" COI issue. However, two wrongs don't make a right, and you've indicated some degree of involvement in the controversy yourslef. Can you please provide a more specific description of your involvement? Thank you, CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn’t see it, I already answered this question when you raised it earlier (see the last comment in the “New Charges” section). I discovered some of his journalistic transgressions. I’ve been open about this from the beginning (though I prefer to remain otherwise anonymous). I’ve also carefully read the COI guidelines multiple times (checking its applicability in regards to myself), and see no violation. I don’t personally know Posner, have not personally been wronged by Posner, have never spoken to Posner, am not involved in litigation with Posner, did not write any of the news articles, and gain no benefit from edits of Posner’s Wikipedia page. In addition, I have no particularly strong views that come into conflict with any of Posner’s writing (e.g. I’m not in the large class of people that appear to have strong feelings, pro or con, about him because of Case Closed - haven't even read it). However, I do have clear views regarding the journalistic transgressions. To be honest, I personally feel like I bend over backwards to be fair to him in my edits, trying to compensate for the biases that I might have.Eurytemora (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hadn't seen that originally. I appreciate your volunteering to not edit the article, as Maurreen suggested. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ambrose

I appreciate a neutral eye looking at the Ambrose article. Just a note on the Eisenhower controversy: There doesn't seem to be much criticism of the validity of Ambrose's work on Ike. In fact, it's considered one of the definitive biographies of him. Rather, what's in question are Ambrose's assertions regarding the time he spent interviewing Eisenhower. If you're interested, see [1] and [2]. I guess the question is, should a critique of someone's body of work weigh his self-promotion equally with his scholarship?

I share your concerns about the tone of the criticism section of the Ambrose article. You noted that you "feel that there is some level of bias at certain points (e.g. Inaccuracies section), even though nothing appears factually wrong." There have been many versions of that section in the past month. I'm wondering if you could take a look at some of the earlier versions and see if there are any that may be worded better. Thanks! 75.2.209.226 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the Ambrose article, and in particular, for your careful review of the sources and discussion on the talk page of the article. I've added some information on his career, and will be looking to do more with that.

I think one of the issues regarding the tone of the article has to do with overkill - the duplication of information, or the (unnecessary?) description of detail. For example, in the first paragraph of the Plagiarism section, there are two separate sentences describing his method of footnoting, but not quoting, other authors. Similarly, the Eisenhower controversy is described both in the Career section and the Criticism section. I was thinking about moving the paragraph on that controversy out of the Career section and into the Criticism one. What do you think? 75.2.209.226 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have time to look closely right now, but I agree that it would probably be better to have all the Eisenhower controversy material in the Criticism section (rather than spread across Criticism and Career). I’d noticed that when I first read the article (i.e. the inclusion of some of this material in the Career section), and think that an article generally reads better if its “conceptual blocks” are clean. I’d also noticed the two separate and largely redundant statements about his method of footnoting but not quoting, and tend to agree with you that this redundancy could be eliminated (without losing any info) by proper editing. Eurytemora (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! When you do find some time, I'd appreciate another look at the article, as I've made a lot of editing changes, but hope I've kept the substance the same. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m inundated with work, so I’ve only had a chance to skim the article (and not to do the careful read that it warrants). I think your editing has improved it. I was happy to see the additional info in the Career section (e.g. tour business, that his earliest works concerned the Civil War, etc) and think this section should be expanded further yet. Eurytemora (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Re: [3]. Just a friendly and nonconfrontational note that you need to be aware of WP:NPA, which states "comment on the content and not the contributor" and also WP:STALK. I think that you have reached the edge on both policies, if not actually crossing over them. Also I believe that, with regard to Gerald Posner, that you need to study WP:BATTLE. Your edits seem to have been confined almost exclusively to that person, with the intent of adding negative content to his article. While you have made valid contributions to that article, such as your recent discovery of errors placed in the article, possibly by Posner himself, your personal involvement in this subject is somewhat troubling. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in discussions for exactly two articles (three discussion pages - the Posner and Ambrose talk pages and the Ambrose discussion on the noticeboard) in which you've been involved. My awareness/interest in both articles (and my general interest in "journalistic misconduct") proceeded yours, as far as I can tell, and my participation in the Ambrose discussions has only been intermittent. Some perspective is called for. Calling such contributions wikistalking effectively serves to silence any difference of opinion from your own. Eurytemora (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheeseStakeholder, Just to be fully specific – I developed a general interest in issues of plagiarism/fabrication/inaccuracy among authors/journalists as a result of Posner. I first posted to the Posner article (initially the talk page) on February 14, 2010. Based on your contribs, you first posted to the Posner article on April 18. I began watching the Ambrose article in February, given its analogies to Posner’s situation. However, beyond reading some of the referenced material, I did little research into Ambrose. I did track the emergence of the Eisenhower issue in the press (but not at depth). I also did some stats on the Ambrose article (e.g. positive versus negative material). On May 21, I brought the Ambrose article to your attention. Based on your contribs, you first posted to the Ambrose article on May 23. Seeing your arguments (on the Ambrose talk page) to remove sourced negative material from the Ambrose article, I posted a comment (disagreeing and alluding to the Posner article) on May 26. You first posted about the Ambrose article on the NPOV noticeboard on May 24. I posted my first comment in that thread (regarding the Ambrose article, in which I obviously have an interest) on June 12 (and checked recent contribs before doing so). I’ve intersecting with you on no other articles. This is your definition of wikistalking???? Eurytemora (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding your characterization: “crusade on the Internet to expose what you believe to be inappropriate conduct by Posner”. I contributed information on journalistic misconduct to two mainstream media reporters, who verified that it was fully valid and published it (I was one of about eight people who ultimately contributed such information, though I did contribute a substantial share). I also wrote two professionally/neutrally worded pieces in February that were posted on a now defunct blog (the owner of the blog was the person who initially called Posner’s plagiarism to my attention). In addition, once information had been published in reliable sources, I sought to have it incorporated in the Posner Wikipedia article (though I also initially included one of the blog posting as a supplementary source, since I was not yet familiar with WP reliable sourcing criteria). I have posted information on Posner to no other forums, blogs, listserves, etc. People can judge for themselves whether this constitutes a “crusade on the internet”. Eurytemora (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating (to me at least) little historical aside. In CheeseStakeHolder’s response to me on the NPOV noticeboard, he includes the following diff:[4]

In this discussion comment (contained in the diff), I was complaining that editor Gamaliel had inappropriately completely deleted a legitimate section from the article discussion board. See diff showing Gamaliel's deletion:[5]

It still seems pretty clear to me that exactly such a discussion board item should not be deleted (since this fundamentally compromises the function that the discussion board is supposed to serve). In addition, in retrospect, the complaint Gamaliel deleted was correct – it’s now been established (and even reported in MSM) that Posner, the subject of the article, was apparently removing negative information about the scandal (under the username Miamiskull), unwittingly abetted by Gamaliel. Here’s an example of a diff where Gamaliel reverts to a version by Posner (that had deleted some of the negative information inserted by other editors).[6] Eurytemora (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks-

Many thanks for your message about the anon editor. I am slowly recovering from surgery that was an emergency. About the disruptive editor I did have contact with the anon editor and tried to be pleasant and cooperative. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comment-I am feeling better. Please take a look at the Ashton Corners, Wisconsin article, edit history, and talk page, I was under the distinct impression this anon editor was from Wisconsin living somewhere in Dane County. I am a little stun that this editor is from Connecticut. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you on my talk page.

Hi, I didn't mean not to respond to you, I thought I had. Well, look at my talk page here and I think you will understand. Again, I am sorry for not responding earlier. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sock problem

Just heading to bed. I'll look at it in the morning.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the problem. Sit down and compile as complete a list of target articles as you can (don't be too maniacal: 80%-90% coverage will do), and I'll see if I can write an edit filter to help with the problem.—Kww(talk) 14:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sift&Winnow

Why was Sift&Winnow lumped in with Filmcracker? I've been asked why I blocked him, and I'm having a hard time justifying it.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's/she's back

Please see the message I have posted here and review the links in it. We really need to take care of this issue once and for all. Centpacrr (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said it at the ANI thread, so I'll do so here... thanks for stepping up with detailed information. Notice the crickets since your last big post? I salute you! Jusdafax 06:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's Back!!

Our friend from Connecticut is back. See here and WP:ANI#Possible sockpuppet. Cheers Centpacrr (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]