Talk:Steve Down

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 10 September 2018, see discussion. No consensus, 24 July 2018, see discussion. no consensus, 20 June 2017, see discussion.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles Oregon Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Regarding the recent edit revert (at 19:07, 5 October 2017‎), there was no censorship of information. No cited information was removed from the page, but rather some information was moved from the summary to the appropriate location on the page for clarity, and duplicated information was removed for conciseness. The entirety of the information was still there, along with all cited references, so I don't understand why the edits would be accused of censorship. The edit summaries were very precise and descriptive of the edits that were made. Having so much detail about the SEC events that occurred 20 years ago in the page's initial summary is giving undue weight to these events. This goes against Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View fundamental principle, which states "undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." No cited references were removed. Information was only moved to the appropriate sections of the page (the majority of which was already duplicated in the Investors Dynamics Corporation section), and a summary of this information was left in the initial page summary. Reverting these edits removed applicable information from reliable cited sources that are already cited elsewhere on the page.Anon89537 (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon89537! Thanks for reaching out on the talk page to discuss these edits and reversals. The reason those edits were removed was because this biography page has little actual substance and has been nominated for deletion in the past. The intro paragraph provides a brief overview of the subject and is often the only thing some readers see. The information regarding IDC appears to be one of the few pieces of information about Steve Down that makes this Wikipedia page viable. Removing it from the summary leaves very little substance or significance of the rest of the content. News such as an SEC decision or news article about a topic are common in Wikipedia articles - take a look at the bad press mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

-Anon1-3483579 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the page intro paragraph of the page contains all significant press, good and bad, without any undue weight either way. Anon1-3483579 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon1-3483579, Thanks for your reply. Moving a sentence or two of specific (and duplicated) details from the summary to the applicable section isn't reducing the viability of this page. I agree, the intro paragraph should provide a brief overview of the subject, and the recently reverted edits did leave a brief overview of these events in the intro paragraph. No coverage of the IDC SEC investigation was removed at all, just merely placed in the appropriate sections rather than having redundant and needlessly specific details in the summary, and a summary of these events was left in the intro paragraph. You are correct that the page was nominated for deletion, but the verdict was to keep it due to "sustained coverage on account of his sandwich shop and other activities 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8" (quoted from GretLomborg on this article's deletion page). I understand Wikipedia pages have good and bad news, and the "bad news" was not removed. The intro paragraph still summarized the IDC SEC investigation in the edits that were reverted.

Please refer to these pages regarding reverting edits on Wikipedia: WP:ROWN and WP:DONTREVERT

--Anon89537 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon89537, Thanks again for your reply. I understand your concern here, however, more details of the IDC litigation are contained in the lower section. What is contained in the information removed in your edits were primary source documents included in the summary, in favor of news articles that were already mentioned. These primary source documents bring legitimacy to the article. The sentences on IDC in the summary contain a brief summary of the entire section. It is larger, as the section is one of the most noteworthy items in the article.

Now, with regards to the comment on the deletion of the page, you are entirely correct! What saved the page was the news articles regarding the sandwhich shop, with reluctance of some admins still. Now, since then there have been many more significant national news articles which are included, and which pointed out the SEC-IDC litigation. Becuase of this relatively new light on the subject of IDC, it makes sense to have it described from reliable, federal primary source documents in the intro summary.

-Anon1-3483579 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon89537, Although I truly do appreciate your efforts to edit this page, it seems very clear, that, as an employee of Steve Down, it is increasingly clear that your goal must be to remove harsh information.

I'd like to address your continued efforts to claim that IDC was not proven to be a pyramid scheme, however you cite that no civil penalties in a monetary amount were issued. The SEC documents clearly state no civil penalties in monetary form because the defendant had no ability to pay. This was final judgement, and although defendant did not deny or confirm allegations, he accepted the penalties as if they were confirmed. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civil penalties included:

-Anon1-3483579 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon1-3483579, I am not removing "harsh" information from the page. My most recent edit was clearly adding information from reliable sources already existing on the page, not removing information.

I do not "claim" IDC was not proven to be a pyramid scheme−−this information is from a source already existing on the page: "A judge later determined there was insufficient evidence to prove the company operated a pyramid scheme."[3] There is no evidence that IDC was proven to operate a pyramid scheme, only that allegations were made. If there is any verifiable verdict that states otherwise, please advise.

You are correct, the SEC documents clearly state no civil penalties were imposed (as well as the article I just cited: [3]). In the second source you site, it states "On July 21, [1998], the Commission accepted an offer of settlement submitted by Steven L. Down in connection with administrative proceedings which had previously been instituted against Down."[2] This is the most recent news direct from the SEC regarding these events. By no means does this confirm any allegations. If you do have verifiable evidence that confirms allegations, please advise.

Also, the second source you cite says nothing of IDC being told to cease operations. The only article that says anything on this matter is this article: [4], which was written in 1996 (at the very beginning of the investigation) and clearly states "A federal judge has ordered Midvale-based Investors Dynamics Corp. to cease operations temporarily following allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission." Thus, this was temporary, and is not a final judgement nor listed anywhere as such. Again, if you have verifiable evidence that confirms this as a final judgement, please advise.

You seem very intent on reverting any and all edits you do not agree with, even despite properly sourced references. This goes against Wikipedia's policies. As stated before, please refer to WP:ROWN. Anon89537 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki and other admins figure this out, as he seems to have taken it upon himself to do cleanup. Thanks for your help. I don't want to be a biased party here, but I saw some biased content that was here originally.-Anon1-3483579 (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:DONTREVERT before proceeding with reversions in the future.) Anon89537 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:DONTREVERT. My explanation was provided. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I would just like to note that there continues to be repeated attempts by IP vandals, most of which appear to be from Salt Lake City, Utah - the same place of origin of Steve Down, to remove almost all content from this page. They repeatedly cite "Clark Gardner is no longer employed." However, 1) the information pertaining to Clark Gardner is not the only info removed, 2) the information about Clark Gardner pertains to Steve Down's company, Financially Fit, whether or not he is still employed, 3) all evidence suggests that Clark Gardner is still employed, 4) no evidence is being presented by said IP vandals to the contrary, and 5) at least one of the IP vandals even went to my talk page to sprinkle personal accusations across random threads. It's clearly some sort of attempt by someone who doesn't like the information. Wikipedia contains the good and the bad, whatever is well-documented - and this page contains what is well-documented. Please, if you are reading this, IP vandals. Please stop. Wikipedia is not a promotional piece, it is informational. - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to the subject? 172.56.41.247 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my User page, I do not make edits to any subjects that I have any real life involvement. I have no involvement or connection to the subject. As of late I have not been editing new pages but rather keeping tabs on vandals and updates on the ones I have edited, which is why I continue to remove Vandal edits, such as the one which I recently undid. I believe you were the user that made the edit correct? Anyways, please do not use Wikipedia to advertise. Censorship with no explanation is also against Wikipedia guidelines. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to make a note to any aspiring vandals (sarcasm) that they should not make personal accusations in edit summaries, as some of them have have done recently, or any personal attacks at all. This violates Wikipedia guidelines. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went over this pretty carefully. The citation formatting could be improved and there are still reference piles but it is mostly OK now. Lots of excessive detail removed. Encyclopedia, not newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, I noticed your recent reversal of edits I've made related to the recent plethora of news coverage related to the conclusion of an SEC investigation, which resulted in a consent to the charges. This does represent a consensus? - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"How Unique Collaborations Propel Impossible Goals". Forbes. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
"How this Entrepreneur is Winning the Hearts of Millennials". Huffington Post. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
"This Entrepreneur Would Like to Make 'Cause Capitalism' the Theme of all Business, With 4 Steps". Forbes. Retrieved 22 June 2018.