User talk:Markscottwhistler

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a long wall of text in caps and accusing another editor of not being impartial (as you did here), is not going to help. We edit according to Wikipedia's policies. One of our requirements is to use

Your recent editing history at Michael J Palumbo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please do not do any more reverts. Continue to discuss on the talk page. You have already violated the 3 revert rule. If you revert any further, you will be blocked. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have posted it there so that other editors can help you understand our policies. I will refrain from editing the article Michael J Palumbo in the meantime. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Markscottwhistler (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #16312 was submitted on Aug 10, 2016 22:00:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Markscottwhistler (talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Markscottwhistler (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Because I really care about the content, building an encyclopedia, and recognize where I have erred.

Decline reason:

After reading the discussion below, I don't think you've recognized where you've erred, I think you're blaming everyone else for your failure to establish consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dear Wikipedia,

Foremost, I apologize for writing in caps, in my replies to changes to the page Michael J Palumbo. I also apologize for speaking towards the editors, and not the editing.

I felt extremely emotional, and felt completely bullied. Regardless, it is not my place to speak towards other editors, or to raise my voice in caps. Please accept my apology.

I also believe I should be unblocked because I have worked very, very hard on the page Michael J Palumbo over the past couple of years. I've done my absolute best to make sure all of the information is sourced, and the page is reliable.

I still feel completely bullied, and feel that this page has been bullied, but regardless of how I feel, the only way forward is to work within the guidelines of Wikipedia's policies. I understand I have reverted edits, and will ensure this does not happen again in the future. This much I completely realize. And I apologize if my emotional reply, feeling so bullied, has crossed the line of acceptable behavior within Wikipedia. It will not happen again.

I would like to continue to work on the page, and provide other content to Wikipedia. All I would like to do is build reliable encyclopedia content.

I ask you to please review the way this page has been edited - and what feels like - bullied.

As an example, one of your editors removed Michael J Palumbo's wife's name, and the names of his kids from the infobox.

I don't understand why - because if we look at other major business magnet's pages - like George Soros... His wife's name, and children's names are there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

So why was this information removed from this page, and not the others. It was sourced correctly. This is just the tip of the iceberg... One editor deleted information mentioning the book he wrote. Another editor said the book does not have an ISBN number. ISBN-10: 0997459506 and ISBN-13: 978-0997459500 on the book cover, on Amazon.com, and registered in the International ISBN database. How was this missed?

All of the external links were deleted, and much of the bio information was deleted as well - the editor called it "bio fluff". But again, if you look at George Soros' Wiki-page, Warren Buffet's Wiki-page, and pages of other business magnet's, all of the same information is there.

I feel like because I challenged one edit, from an editor who has been giving this page a difficult time from the start, the consequence was that more editors came in and just completely tore the page to pieces. Even removing the same information that lives on other Wikipedia pages, like children's names in the infobox.

The information was correctly sourced, so why was it removed here and not on George Soros' page?

I am so very emotional and upset because I do feel this page has been completely bullied by the editors. I feel so discouraged and powerless, to have worked so hard on a page, and then have editors come in and instead of actually adding any content (building), just delete. Aren't we here to build?

Regardless, I apologize for my behavior. I can only account for my actions. I truly care about the content of this page and have worked very, very hard to make sure it is accurate and well sourced.

I was just reading the normal protocol for dispute resolution -

The very first section of this article is: Follow the normal protocol[edit] When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

- On the Michael J Palumbo page, so much text has been deleted... Salvageable text. There was no discussion, no attempt for the editors to reach out, no anything. Just text from the original article completely deleted, without caution, concern, or compassion. This has just been so heartbreaking, especially because Normal Protocol directly conflicts this behavior.

The second point of Dispute Resolution is:

Discuss with the other party[edit]

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement: You must stay in the top three sections of this pyramid during disputes. Further information: Wikipedia:Negotiation Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation.

At no point did any of the other editors attempt to follow this protocol. Instead just slashed as much text as possible. Given the amount of hard work I've put into this article, I would think this would infuriate almost anyone. This protocol has to work both ways. I should have reached out to the editors I felt were excessively picking on the page, but at the same time, shouldn't they have also, before just completely deleting passages and text?

How can I focus on the content, when it's just deleted en masse? How can we work together when there is no discussion? Shouldn't we all be following the same protocol?

Honestly, I would love to have a moderated discussion of what has been deleted, while also looking at other pages as examples.

---

What pushed me over the edge was when Michael Palumbo's book was deemed insignificant. I cannot get my mind around this because Encyclopedias are not about opinions, but rather, facts. He wrote a book, it's a fact. Who are we to decide whether a work is significant or not?

Regardless - I completely handled the situation poorly, and for that I apologize. I do respect the other editors wholeheartedly and would love to work with them to add quality content to this page.

His book is self-published and has been ignored by all those who might find it of use or interest, so it has no value here. Any clown can self-publish, but we are under no obligation to pay attention to that fact.

And by the way, at no point have you addressed your multiple and obnoxious attempts to add an advertisement for your self-published book to various places where it did not belong. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Any clown can self-publish" - Isn't this is same type of language that Wikipedia requests not to use in dispute resolution?

I don't think I've attempted to market my book at all, the book had one very small mention in the page, I believe. It's completely okay to leave it out. I'm just trying to build the page... And also, the book was published by John Wiley & Sons. How was that missed?

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470039086.html

About John Wiley & Sons: "Wiley has been honored frequently for its sustained financial success and exceptional culture. Accolades include Forbes magazine's list of the "400 Best Big Companies in America," Book Business magazine's citation of Wiley as "One of the 20 Best Book Publishing Companies to Work For," and Standard and Poor's 2006 addition of Wiley to its MidCap 400 Index. In addition, Fortune magazine named Wiley one of the "100 Best Companies to Work For," and Wiley Australia has received the Australian government's "Employer of Choice for Women" citation every year since its inception in 2001. Wiley has also appeared on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Best Workplaces for Commuters" list.

Wiley authors have received numerous honors, and Wiley and its acquired companies have published the works of more than 450 Nobel laureates in every Nobel prize category: Literature, Economics, Physiology/Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, and Peace." http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-301697.html

I don't understand what's happening here? I would very much like to resolve this please.

Thank you so much! Please - can we work together?

--Markscottwhistler | Talk 00:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about your real book published by the reputable publisher Wiley; I'm talking about the non-notable self-published "Orwellian sci-fi" novel you attempted no less than four times to shoehorn into various places where it did not belong. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for butting in Orangemike). Umm, Markscottwhistler, the first step to do here is to read the COI notice which has been give to you above. You need to disclose if you have any conflict of interest. Are you in any way related to Michael J Palumbo (for example, family/friend/aquantaince/colleague/employer/employee/business partner or any other relation)? Why are you so intensely interested in this particular article for years? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Markscottwhistler | Talk 01:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Orangemike, could you please show me where me trying to "shoehorn" my novel occurred? Would you please show me where my novel was ever mentioned anywhere, even in the slightest? I'm just asking you politely to please show me what and where you are talking about. Please show us all.[reply]

I'm asking you so politely again, can we please work together?

Lemongirl, thank you for your comment, I have read the COI. I have zero conflict of interest here. I simply like the subject and believe I can do a good job covering it. But why I am starting to feel ganged up on and bullied again?

I'm asking you so politely again, can we please work together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markscottwhistler (talk • contribs)

Your first five edits, from 07:24, 13 April 2009 to 23:46, 14 April 2009. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Markscottwhistler, you are saying that you have no COI - my question was slightly different. I asked if you are somehow related to Michael J Palumbo. In addition, I somehow get a feeling that you have definitely corresponded with the subject. Would you please clarify of you have ever done that? The first step to manage COI is to be transparent. COI by itself is not a problem - the problem happens when people try to hide this COI and then try to edit non-neutrally. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Markscottwhistler | Talk 01:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl: Yes, I know Mike, I interviewed him way back. And yes, I did attend his book release party. Do I have a conflict of interest? I don't think so. Does a journalist who meets his interview subject have a conflict of interest to report on/about him, just because they met for the interview? Do interview subjects ever invite their interviewers to a major event they are hosting. Yes. Do they attend? Yes. But I do not have a conflict of interest. I'm not trying to push an opinion, just help contribute to the encyclopedia of facts. And I appreciate your question... It's obvious I've interviewed Mike before, but shouldn't that make me even more credible to tell this story? I've clearly been transparent about the chapter about Mike in my book - via the cite in the page. But because it was my book, I did my best to make it a very small mention. Please go back and look at the page before all of this editing began. I appreciate what you are asking, but I've already disclosed the relationship directly in the page itself.

Orangemike: Okay - so let me get this straight. You are talking about something completely unrelated to this page? Something from seven years ago, where I quickly learned what not to do on Wikipedia. But you're now correlating an event from seven years ago, to a completely different page now...

Where there is zero mention, or connection? Zero correlation. I am really feeling so completely bullied right now.

Please post the URL to the edits you are talking about, so we can all see them, and discuss them in relation to this conversation and the page for Michael J Palumbo. The page for Michael J Palumbo didn't even show up until 2014, so how can the two be correlated?

Again, it's amazing that in Wikipedia Protocol our conversation is supposed to be about content.

Like, I feel like you guys are reaching to try to vilify me in some way?

Is that what this conversation is about?

I am asking you again, can we just please work together to create this page?

I keep trying to politely and humbly ask you to work together!

How else can I politely ask you for your help - so we can work together?

You have a provable COI, which I am not mentioning publicly due to

WP:OUTING

concerns, but of which I have the evidence ready to show admins privately when appropriate.

So your history of work at Wikipedia has been to repeatedly edit in 2009 to promote your novel, and then to go away and do just this COI editing starting in 2014. I cannot find anything in your editing record that would not fit into one of those two sections, so there's really no sign you have intent to help improve Wikipedia despite years of contributions.

You are now asking "can we just please work together to create this page?", so apparently your actual interest is in this page in particular. However, when other people in the past have sought to improve the page in various ways, that has not gone well, has it? I can tell you that your response to my edits has been to undo them at times without any given reason, much less a reason that meets Wikipedia standards. Your response to being addressed on your talk page or to have edits brought up on the article's talk page has been not to post any response. And your definition of being "bullied" would seem to have to be horribly broad to include what has actually happened, which is other people trying to bring an imperfect page closer to guidelines.

As for the claim that "Another editor said the book does not have an ISBN number", the closest I can find to that statement examining the article talk page and the histories of the talk page and the article itself is the edit summary "no links to sales sites, and book needs an ISBN" from LaMona, which was not a claim that the book doesn't have an ISBN but an explanation for their edit, which included adding the ISBN to the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Markscottwhistler | Talk 04:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point. Not a single voice at Wikipedia to review this situation impartially. And the Personal Attacks...

This is bullying. There are now three participating - and how many more watching?

Is there not a single impartial voice out there? Can we not just fact check the original content together and just let the facts speak for themselves?

This has become about condemning me, and not the content of the page? I truly worked really hard to create a great encyclopedic entry. Disruptive editing - I mean - just knowing whatever we might try to produce - if it is going to be met with long-term disruptive - like some kind of bizarre grudge - is just discouraging.

NatGertler, how long have you been editing this page?

(cur | prev) 03:11, 12 March 2014‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,989 bytes) (-682)‎ . . (→‎Business career: boring blogowhatever is not a WP:RS, and doesn't contain the claim of a record anyway) (undo) <---- Is this disruptive editing? Is it polite? Is it respectful even at all? After years of being treated like this, you bet, I really got upset the other night. For which, I apologize. I hope you can see why though. To have worked so hard - to constantly improve - to be disdainfully disregarded and quietly insulted for years. "boring blogowhatever"

Insult and delete - not adding any additional content, or even making the slightest attempt to fact check and revise?

I'm sorry, is this how any of you would like to be treated?

Points #1 and #2 Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit may be clearly disruptive but the overall pattern is so. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it.

So in this entire conversation we haven't even been able to address the content proper. All of this is a personal attack. If we were able to address the content, maybe you would see that all of your personal attacks are unfounded.

This is where we are at. I'm asking once again, can we please work together?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

Disruptive editors sometimes attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways: Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit may be clearly disruptive but the overall pattern is so. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it. Their comments may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion. Their edits are limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch. Conversely, their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles to make it less likely that any given user watches a sufficient number of affected articles to notice the disruptions. Nonetheless, such disruptive editing violates Wikipedia policy and norms. Examples of disruptive editing[edit] Shortcut: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified ^{[citation needed]} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. In addition, such editors might: Shortcuts: WP:DAPE WP:CTDAPE Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

--Markscottwhistler | Talk 05:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was stated above by NatGertler:

You have a provable COI, which I am not mentioning publicly due to

WP:OUTING

concerns, but of which I have the evidence ready to show admins privately when appropriate. <--- Is this not a quiet threat?

This was a threat. In direct violation of Wikipedia's policies.

I have nothing to hide - I've disclosed my relationship with Michael Palumbo.

"Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Directly from the following Wikipedia policy page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information

And the entire evening, I've been trying to resolve this issue amicably, only to be met with constant resistance and resentment by the Wikipedia team.

I keep asking - Can we please work on this article together?

At what point do we get to begin to just talk about the content of the page in question and just simply fact check it with an open dialog and conversation?

Once more, I keep asking - Can we please work on this article together?

At this point, you are making an unblock request, so this discussion is actually supposed to be about you.

As for your concerns regarding

WP:OUTING

, you might have read further into that section to where it says Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy).

I'm not sure how you would take "boring blogowhatever" to be an attack on you, but if one looks at the edit, I was deleting the use of "boringest.blogasian.com" as a reference, so "boring blogowhatever" is a reasonable pointer to the part of the edit I was talking about at the moment.

And now, I must be out the door; do not take lack of response to rest of your message to mean concurrence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. And as for the accusations of disruptive edits, the list you enumerate from is not what constitutes disruptive edits, but how a disruptive editor might try to avoid detection. And even then, let's see what happens when the two points you point to are applied.

1. Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit may be clearly disruptive but the overall pattern is so. Let's see, you've been editing this page longer than I have, with your first edits being weeks before mine.
2. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it. I've done 21 edits to the article itself, and 9 to the talk page, so no, my edits are far from confined to the talk page. One would be hard-pressed to even claim that I was preventing consensus from being reached on the talk page, as I first posted on the talk page in April 2014, and until two days ago, I was the only person involved in conversation there. There was no one else's work there to disrupt.

In any case, that's irrelevant to this discussion, as this is not my unblock request.

May I suggest that, if you ever wish to be unblocked, that you not try to announce that every editor that weighs in on your edits and on your unblock request must be partial and that they're bullying you, when they seem merely to be disagreeing with you. Even if you do not believe it possible that you are in the wrong, acting in such a manner is not likely to paint you as a reasonable and cooperative contributor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvoled editor You keep asking "can we please work on this article together":

After User:Lemongirl942 removed unused ref links, including one to one of your own books:

• • "Like, I said... Wikibullied. Let's just allow pure journalism and media handle this from here on out. YOUR DELETES show exactly what I'm tal."
  • "THIS IS CRAZY! WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE A BOOK IS UNIMPORTANT? IT'S A PUBLISHED BOOK, HAS 15 FIVE STAR REVIEWS, AND IS AT THE TOP 100 BOOKS IN KINDLE")
  • The bulk of your edits to Talk:Michael J Palumbo are devoted to railing against a different editor.

Wikipedia is a collaborative process. When multiple editors tell you the same thing, we call it a "consensus." If you can't deal with not always getting your own way (see

WP:OWN), you should probably not be editing here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

--Markscottwhistler | Talk 06:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and comments. I would like to reply in full in the morning. I need a little time to think about everything. Thank you.

--Markscottwhistler | Talk 08:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so very sorry for the slow reply. This is an extremely stressful, and deeply emotional conversation. I need to request to please - well, if I step away from the conversation for the weekend... I only hope to respond in a well thought out- very appropriate manner - I am so close to this right now, I need to step away for a few days.

Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.95.135.15 (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Markscottwhistler | Talk 03:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk Page for Markscottwhistler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markscottwhistler

The following entry contains three main sections: 1. Another apology for my use of caps and inappropriate responses to editorial changes, while also not following the proper editing guidelines while replying to other editing.

2. A significant case for why and how I have become extremely unnerved by the excessive and unfounded editing within the page Michael J Palumbo. Specific examples of why, where, and how the editing of the page Michael J Palumbo has been excessive, opinionated, and unfounded.

3. Request for arbitration.

Link to the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_J_Palumbo&action=history

1. Foremost, I would like to apologize for the way I have handled my responses to editing in the past. I used all caps in my reply which is inappropriate, for which I apologize. I replied to editing by reverting edits, while also responding with strong language, which was inappropriate. I apologize. I understand the editing guidelines in Wikipedia are in place for a reason, and I apologize for not following all of the proper channels and guidelines.

I understand that we must work as a team, and I can only provide assurance that I will do my absolute best to not just discuss changes with editors, but also follow all guidelines of the editing process within Wikipedia.

2. It has felt to me that from the beginning, this page has been edited more from an opinionated standpoint of somehow discrediting the page, excessive deleting of salvageable text, while also seemingly very little effort by other editors to help build the page. It has felt like the sole goal is simply to slash and delete as much content as possible, with no effort to build.

To begin one of the first edits that created a problem was:

• (cur | prev) 23:14, 8 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,484 bytes) (-244)‎ . . (No sign that this recent, self-published book is significant.) (undo)

Let's discuss this edit. Foremost, Wikipedia's job is to create an encyclopedia based on facts, not opinions. "No sign that this recent self-published book is significant" is an opinion, and not a fact. Thus the question becomes, "What is significant?" Wikipedia certainly does acknowledge self-published authors as seen through the entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-publishing

At no place in the Wikipedia entry for self-publishing does the article discuss what makes a self-published work notable. Which makes sense. Why would it. Significance, is simply an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, how can an editor ever deem a work significant or not, if he/she has never read the work personally. Shouldn't the editor have some knowledge of the work, if he/she is going to make such an impactful judgement call on a work that is in print?

As of this morning, the book Calculated Risk: The Modern Entrepreneur's Handbook - the eBook version was ranked on Amazon.com as:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #352,012 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

1. 45 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Business & Money > Management & Leadership > Consolidation & Merger

1. 120 in Books > Business & Money > Management & Leadership > Consolidation & Merger

1. 251 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Business & Money > Entrepreneurship & Small Business > Entrepreneurship > Startups

https://www.amazon.com/Calculated-Risk-Michael-Palumbo-ebook/dp/B01F1N0I8O/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1471286930&sr=8-1

Furthermore, Timothy Draper, arguably one of the most prominent current venture capitalists in Silicon Valley has personally mentioned the book on his personal Twitter feed, clearly the book is important in its own market.

https://twitter.com/TimDraper/status/764137168386269184

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_C._Draper

In addition, as a list of recent media mentions of Mr. Palumbo, are twelve second party coverage and mentions of the book not enough? Are the twelve links to second party coverage not enough to establish notability for this page.

The most recent flag that has gone up on the page is to question the notability of the page and delete it. But all of the second party links that establish notability were deleted by another editor this past week. So first the links to second party sources that establish notability are deleted and then a new flag appears saying notability must be established via second party sources?

This is infuriating, discouraging, and hurtful.

Here are recent second party sources and coverage of Michael J Palumbo that more than establish "notability."

VIDEO

6/30/16 WHDT World News - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpWdhKCuDtE

AUDIO

8/8/16 WBBM Noon Business Hour – (13:30 in) - http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/noon-business-hour-on-wbbm-newsradio/

7/25/16 WBBM Noon Business Hour – (26:10 in) - http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/noon-business-hour-on-wbbm-newsradio/

7/19/16 School For Startups Radio – (6:30 in) - http://schoolforstartupsradio.com/2016/07/calculated_risk/

7/6/16 Benzinga: PreMarket Prep (58 minutes in)- https://soundcloud.com/bztv https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/benzinga-premarket-prep/id915782694?mt=2 http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/benzinga-morning-show?refid=stpr

7/6/16 WGN: The Opening Bell (3:45 in) - http://wgnradio.com/2016/07/06/the-opening-bell-07-6-16-autonomous-cars-having-its-first-hardship/

7/6/16 Market Wrap With Moe (23:20 in) - http://marketwrapwithmoe.com/

PRINT

7/27/16 US News & World Report - http://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-07-27/facebook-earnings-catapult-fb-stock-to-all-time-highs

7/6/16 US News & World Report - http://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-07-06/health-care-stocks-are-quietly-moving-higher

6/23/16 Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/sites/shreyaagarwal/2016/06/23/volatility-touches-four-month-high-as-u-k-vote-looms/#59b0d138f5fd

6/17/16 WSJ - http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/06/17/another-brexit-headache-margin-calls-and-contract-uncertainty/

6/15/16 The Street - https://www.thestreet.com/story/13608464/1/upcoming-brexit-vote-rattles-u-s-markets-yes-vote-could-trigger-even-bigger-selloff.html

Next, if we take a look at the initial edits by two of the editors, we see that based on Wikipedia's guidelines of disruptive editing… There is absolutely no saving or editing of salvageable text, other than one tag added by NatGertler…

Just pure deletion with zero attempt to salvage any of the text whatsoever. This type of behavior would put almost any content creator over the edge, feeling completely picked on and bullied:

(cur | prev) 10:37, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,381 bytes) (-878)‎ . . (→‎References: Removed unused references) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:36, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,259 bytes) (-284)‎ . . (Book and documentary not notable enough. Needs secondary sources anyway) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 10:33, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,543 bytes) (-108)‎ . . (→‎External links: One is enough) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:33, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,651 bytes) (-1,139)‎ . . (→‎Other sources: moved to talk page) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:32, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,790 bytes) (-797)‎ . . (→‎Books and media: Not required. 2 minute coverage, copyvio and possible promotion) (undo)

(cur | prev) 06:47, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,587 bytes) (-582)‎ . . (Undid revision 733638747 by Markscottwhistler (talk) Stop edit warring and come on the talk page) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:01, 9 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,169 bytes) (+33)‎ . . (Added

tag to article (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:33, 9 August 2016‎ Markscottwhistler (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (12,136 bytes) (+582)‎ . . (Undid revision 733629932 by NatGertler (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:49, 9 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,554 bytes) (-358)‎ . . (→‎References: remove references no longer invoked in the text.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:48, 9 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,912 bytes) (-259)‎ . . (→‎Personal life: Continuing implementing changes suggested in 2014, without objection.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:47, 9 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,171 bytes) (-582)‎ . . (Implementing changes on talk page for over two years without. .

As the flags started to appear on the page, it has been almost impossible to defend them as more and more editors piled into the situation with the sole intent of simply discrediting the page, while also deleting as much information as possible.

The article Wikipedia Bullying Editors by Tim Butler states:

http://ethericstudies.org/wikipedia-bullying-editors/ Here is a comment by one of the more obtuse Skeptical editors concerning the value of the Pseudoscience article: I find these discussions tendentious. Why don’t editors spend time writing articles? As a warning, almost anything written here will involve edit warring. There are a large number of editors who helped write this article over the years that will stand up to any Fringe-pushing POV edits. And even a slight change will become a battle. It’s only worth making changes to fringe editors with an agenda. Otherwise, the article is fairly useful. I use it all the time in the real life world as ways to point out pseudoscience. It’s probably one of a handful of articles on Wikipedia that’s actually academic-worthy. OrangeMarlin 17:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC) From Wikipedia

Moreover, the article The Decline of Wikipedia by Tom Simonite mentions:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.

3. At this point, it has felt like there has been zero positive contribution to the page Michael J Palumbo by the editors involved. While I did not handle the situation properly, for which I apologize, I also feel that there may be no other way to resolve this situation now, beyond arbitration.

I would therefore, like to formally request that we move this discussion to the next level: Arbitration.

Thank you so very much,

Mark Whistler

Mark: you may have missed this, but during your weekend away, an administrator reviewed your request for your account to be unblocked, and turned you down. (You can see that at the top of this section of the Talk page.) As such, if you wish to get involved in addressing your content concerns, you should probably first focus on getting unblocked. As it says in the top of this section, it is possible to reapply to be unblocked, but you should read

WP:ARBITRATION is not the next level, it's basically the highest level. The next level would actually be discussion on the article's talk page, which you can engage in (even if you have a conflict of interest) once you are unblocked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Markscottwhistler (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Second Unblock Appeal - I would like to accept responsibility for my errors.

Decline reason:

I have looked at your editing history, and at substantial parts of the walls of text you have posted on this page. Although you go through the motions of apologising, and say that you "would like to accept responsibility for [your] errors", you in fact apologise only for a few minor details, such as your using all capitals and reverting three edits within a 24-hour period, but nowhere do you show any sign whatever of recognising or understanding the far more significant major problems there have been. That inspires no confidence that you actually understand what the problems are, or that you will in future avoid similar problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 12:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia,

This is my second appeal to be unblocked, so I can continue to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

I would like to apologize for inappropriately reverting three edits within a 24-hour period.

In addition, I realize speaking in all caps, along with speaking towards other editors is inappropriate and has no place within the Wikipedia community. Furthermore, I also understand that any dispute, and dispute resolution has a proper place and guidelines, and should not take place within the history of editing of any page.

I understand that when multiple editors make changes, it is a good idea to listen to them, instead of arguing. Discussion is for the appropriate talk page, but has no place on the actual page where editing takes place.

In addition, I would like to add that yes, I do know Michael J Palumbo, I have interviewed him in the past. However, I have absolutely zero business relationship with him in any capacity, and am only attempting to work on the page, because I believe it is of merit to the Wikipedia community.

Please accept my apology. I would like to take responsibility for my errors, and would truly only like to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

Finally, I would like to apologize to NatGertler for offending in any way. I would like to apologize to LemonGirl, OrangeMike, and any other editors I may have offended.

Thank you so much, and please accept my apology.

Kind regards,

Mark Whistler

While I thank the editor for his apology, I must note that he still seems to have as the specific goal not general editing of Wikipedia, but editing one specific page... a page which he has a demonstrable conflict of interest on, a conflict he has not fully admitted to. I ask that that be taken into consideration when considering his appeal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NatGertler - and I would again like to apologize to you personally.

A couple quick items…

I would actually like to work on a few other pages, including that of George Soros and stochastics. I've met George Soros twice and am an expert on reflexivity. I believe I can add quality content.

As for stochastics - on a technical analysis basis within trading, the formula is wrong.

Also, I believe I can definitely be a great contributor to many business mogul pages.

Anyway, I was wondering - wouldn't you want an expert on a subject to be one of the content creators of that page. Like, wouldn't one prefer to have a paleontologist - especially one who has written a book on the subject proving their expertise - to work on pages about dinosaurs?

Finally, I would absolutely love to work on the Michael J Palumbo with you personally NatGertler. Ideally, we could work closely together on the page, to get it done correctly, with proper sourcing. It would allow me to be the best possible contributor to Wikipedia I can possibly be, moving forward. I would truly be so very happy to work with you so very closely to complete the page.

Thank you so much,

Mark Whistler

--Mark Whistler (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael J Palumbo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J Palumbo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

markscottwhistler (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2016 

I would love to be able to contribute to the discussion about deleting the page.

But I'm not allowed I guess?

Here is a list of many of Michael J Palumbo's recent media appearances...

Doesn't this list prove notability?

VIDEO

6/30/16 WHDT World News - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpWdhKCuDtE

AUDIO

8/8/16 WBBM Noon Business Hour – (13:30 in) - http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/noon-business-hour-on-wbbm-newsradio/

7/25/16 WBBM Noon Business Hour – (26:10 in) - http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/noon-business-hour-on-wbbm-newsradio/

7/19/16 School For Startups Radio – (6:30 in) - http://schoolforstartupsradio.com/2016/07/calculated_risk/

7/6/16 Benzinga: PreMarket Prep (58 minutes in)- https://soundcloud.com/bztv https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/benzinga-premarket-prep/id915782694?mt=2 http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/benzinga-morning-show?refid=stpr

7/6/16 WGN: The Opening Bell (3:45 in) - http://wgnradio.com/2016/07/06/the-opening-bell-07-6-16-autonomous-cars-having-its-first-hardship/

7/6/16 Market Wrap With Moe (23:20 in) - http://marketwrapwithmoe.com/

PRINT

7/27/16 US News & World Report - http://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-07-27/facebook-earnings-catapult-fb-stock-to-all-time-highs

7/6/16 US News & World Report - http://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-07-06/health-care-stocks-are-quietly-moving-higher

6/23/16 Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/sites/shreyaagarwal/2016/06/23/volatility-touches-four-month-high-as-u-k-vote-looms/#59b0d138f5fd

6/17/16 WSJ - http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/06/17/another-brexit-headache-margin-calls-and-contract-uncertainty/

6/15/16 The Street - https://www.thestreet.com/story/13608464/1/upcoming-brexit-vote-rattles-u-s-markets-yes-vote-could-trigger-even-bigger-selloff.html

--Mark Whistler (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]