Talk:Adam Schlesinger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image[edit]

Do other editors have an opinion about the inclusion of the photo of Schlesinger? Barrymanitoba has removed it a number of times, but has provided neither an edit summary nor any responses to messages left on his Talk page. I am therefore unsure what his intentions are. My opinion about the image is that it is not great, but that it is better to have even this one rather than none at all. Others' thought...? Thanks, --Paul Erik 16:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of BarryManitoba's edits are centered around FoW, which is perfectly fine and dandy -- obviously a huge fan or somebody associated with the band (just guessing). His editing history of the article is certainly interesting, adding very specific info, and removing very specific info as well (removing the birthdate?!?!). His comment of "please stop posting that photo" is not a valid WP reason to actually stop posting the photo. You have gone out of your way to initiate a conversation, which is always a start. It teeters on the 3RR, but that may be overkill right now. Wait to see what happens next, as he may be having trouble with his clip-on tie and rub-on tan to respond immediately. SpikeJones 05:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adam Schlesinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adam Schlesinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Schlesinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Schlesinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Variety reports that Schlesinger died due to complications from a Covid-19 infection on 1st April 2020.(1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirtavius (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death data[edit]

Death data edits were rejected. Death date is still incorrect. He died on 3/31/2020. Info based on Durchess County COVID-19 report at https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/NYDUTCHESS/bulletins/2843c16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.44.185 (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Death[edit]

He died on the Wednesday morning of April 1, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.216.158 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death[edit]

@Nikkimaria: Not sure what you mean by "no evidence of that" but if it's no evidence his death contributed to his notability, for starters a google search of his name turns up nothing but sources talking about his death one way or another and they all specifically mention he died of COVID-19. Additionally, there's the page views. Before his death he was only averaging about 400/500 page views a day. This month alone he's averaging over 1,000. I also feel like the "doc" you keep referring to is so loosely followed. You can't tell me Michael Jackson or Whitney Houston, two extremely successful musicians, that their deaths legitimately contributed to their notability but a member of a band that was a one hit wonder that didn't do very much of anything outside of being a member of Fountains of Wayne didn't have his death contribute to his notability. Even for me personally I had never heard his name prior to his death. Additionally, contrary to what you seem to believe, it is ok to go against policy from time-to-time (WP:IGNORE). And finally, the parameter descriptions aren't even technically a policy, they're somewhere between a policy and recommendation for when to use each parameter.--Rockchalk717 00:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockchalk717: Pretty much any modern celebrity obituary would mention what they died of - mentioning cause of death doesn't make cause of death significant to notability. Similarly, the page of any celebrity gets a boost in popularity from the announcement of their death regardless of the cause. What is done at other articles is not relevant per MOS:INFOBOXUSE; you may well be correct that other articles use the parameter inappropriately, but that would not be a justification to do so here. You also may not personally have heard of this subject, but he was certainly notable prior to and independent of his death. While it is true that template documentation is not policy, it is a description of community consensus regarding parameter usage. And finally, nothing you've posted here supports edit-warring to add it in, nor changes the onus to get consensus. Please self-revert unless and until you achieve consensus for the disputed inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: INFOBOXPURPOSE mentions nothing about other articles, not sure exactly why you referenced that policy. Next, I personally added this initially after he died and it was in the article for 7 months with a multitude of other edits in between before you took it upon yourself to remove something a multitude of other editors didn't have a problem with, then when myself and at least one other editor from what I see add it back, you take upon yourself each time to revert it so it appears to me the only person with an issue of the inclusion of his cause of death is you. So no, I will not self revert when only one person in the almost two years since his death has had an issue with the inclusion.--Rockchalk717 01:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not cite INFOBOXPURPOSE, I cited INFOBOXUSE: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" (emphasis added). And as already noted, the onus is on you to achieve that consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: My point still remains, your exact words were "What is done at other articles is not relevant per MOS:INFOBOXUSE". That policy doesn't mention anything about other articles as you claimed it did. Additionally, you keep saying onus is on me, well, what the hell do you think I'm trying to do here? You keep bringing up this policy or that policy. I'm not here for a lecture on policy, I'm here to discuss with you, the only person who seems to have had an issue with the inclusion of his cause of death. You have to yet to say anything about that specifically and your attempts to rebuttal my arguments were hardly good points, I specifically gave page views for January of this year since the post-death spike has chilled out. The articles I've specifically mentioned found in google weren't obituaries.--Rockchalk717 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanna add, if he had died of about anything else, I wouldn't be fighting for the inclusion of his cause of death, but because of died of COVID-19 so early in the pandemic, it definitely contributes to the notability.--Rockchalk717 04:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your opinion on my arguments, just as I'm welcome to my opinion on yours. But at the end of the day, consensus-building is based on our policies and guidelines. Something like pageviews on the other hand is not evidence that specifically supports your argument. For example, Eddie Van Halen was another musician who died in 2020, of a stroke. His monthly average pageviews in 2019 were 95k; in January 2022 his pageview count was 252k. That doesn't demonstrate that stroke being the cause of his death is significant to his notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rockchalk717 I agree with you that Adam Schlesinger's case of death is relevant. The template Doc even says to include when the death is signifigant for the subject's notability. Which in this case it is since it was an early death from a notable person. You may also want to look at the Meat Loaf page and Nikkimaria's editing history. Seems he like to remove any cause of death if it says COVID and edit in bad faith trying to support it when other editors will not agree. ContentEditman (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An early death of a notable person does not mean the cause of death is automatically significant to notability; the same would be true if it were from another cause. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ContentEditman and Nikkimaria: ContentEditman, I had similar issue with this editor on another article. That tells me that you, Nikkimaria, have some sort of strong personal vendetta against deaths from COVID-19 being included which has my wheels turning about your personal beliefs about COVID-19 potentially affecting your edits, which is clear and direct violation of Wikipedia policies. You have yet to demonstrate a solid argument that his death isn't contributing to his notability. No two people isn't necessarily a consensus but if that's all that comments on this, then well, it doesn't look good for you on the cause of death not being included.--Rockchalk717 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have absolutely no idea what my personal beliefs are about COVID-19, because they are not relevant to this matter. I work to address common misuse of infobox parameters like this one, period. Please do not make serious accusations without actual evidence to support them. And keep in mind that this is not a vote. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: You getting defensive doesn't help matters and I wasn't making assumptions, I was just saying it's making me think. I'm aware it's not a vote, my previous response actually made it clear I'm aware of that, HOWEVER don't for a second think that a single person not supporting inclusion can outweigh myself, ContentEditman, and all the other editors that editing this page in between when I added it after his death initially and when you took upon yourself to remove it months later. I think it's great you wanna stop inappropriate infobox parameter use, I just removed an inappropriately used parameter from a page last night and have done it frequently in NFL player pages (where I normally edit). However, there are other more egregious parameter uses than cause of death you can focus on, especially since it appears that you have some sort of personal vendetta against inclusion of COVID-19 as a cause of death.--Rockchalk717 18:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing someone remove a misplaced datapoint in specific cases is not evidence of a "personal vendetta", any more than an increase in pageviews after someone's death is evidence that their cause of death was significant to their notability. And adding in "It makes me think" doesn't make a personal attack any more acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was 1 or 2 pages I would agree. But we know its more. You seem to go out of your way looking for Cause of Deaths: COVID on pages and removing them. Stop changing the subject, why are you doing that and edit warring when you do not get your way? ContentEditman (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject we're meant to be discussing on this page is this article, not spurious personal commentary. As noted previously the onus is on those seeking to include the disputed content to present rationales and evidence supporting their position. If you have any such evidence regarding this article feel free to bring it forward here, or you could respond to the similar query at Talk:Meat Loaf regarding that article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: "Makes me think" isn't even remotely close to a personal attack. You may wanna check Wikipedia's personal attack policies, because a false accusation of a personal attack is itself a personal attack. ContentEditman has made solid points about you seeking out cause of death parameters providing COVID-19 as a cause of death. I've had issues with you on one other page and it sounds like other editors had other issues with you about this same topic. I've provided you evidence of my point and you have failed in attempts to rebuttal those points. You have failed in attempts to provide policies to justify exclusion in cause of death. As I stated previously, while a consensus isn't a vote, a single objector can hardly be considered a consensus for exclusion of something. So our conversation is over. I'll give it a couple of days and if there's another objector, I'll continue, if there isn't another objector, I will be reverting your removal and adding it back and do not attempt to continue you edit war about it.--Rockchalk717 05:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you're welcome to your opinion; what you're not welcome to is pretend that you've satisfied WP:ONUS based on this discussion. To recap:
  • You state sources mention he died of COVID-19. That is typical of sources written after the death of any celebrity of any cause, and does not demonstrate significance to notability. In short, he's a celebrity already notable for other reasons who died of COVID, not a celebrity because he died of COVID. If he were not already a notable individual the sources you mentioned (and this article) would not exist; if he was a previously notable musician who died of some other cause, they would.
  • You mention pageviews of this article have increased since his death. You present no evidence that that is related to the specific cause of death. I've presented a counterexample (and there are many others) of another celebrity who died of an unrelated cause around the same time whose article has seen a similar increase over pre-death baseline, and you have not responded to that.
  • You note that other articles use the parameter. That is irrelevant since which parameters to use is decided at each individual article, not based on what other articles do. Additionally if other articles were relevant, there are far more that don't include it.
  • You state that you personally had not heard of this individual before his death. However, notability is not based on what you personally have or have not heard of.
  • You have noted that parameter documentation is not technically a policy; however, as noted it is a reflection of community consensus on how parameters are intended to be used.
  • You have made a number of baseless personal comments which are irrelevant to the substantive issues under discussion.
So if you want to declare the discussion over, fine - but because ONUS requires that positive consensus be demonstrated for inclusion rather than exclusion, that means the disputed content stays out. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I'm not even going to read that. You keep talking about the ONUS is on me, we've got two editors on this talkpage that has stated it's notable enough for inclusion. You haven't made a solid argument for exclusion except referring to the template doc. When me and the editor have reverted your removal you keep say "per talk". Well, what exactly on here? You being unnecessarily rigid on policy? You not having a legitimate argument against his death not contributing to his notability? You saying consensus isn't a vote as an argument for getting your way but failing to realize that at the same time that hardly means a single objector can be justification for exclusion of content? Continue to push exclusion when it's obvious to everyone else the consensus is inclusion I will seek alternate sources of resolution. I'll give you a pass for the reversion last night, but I promise you I will seek the alternate resolution.--Rockchalk717 17:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to seek alternate resolution via DRN as you suggested, please go ahead. But be aware that would require you to discuss the matter and respond to opposing points, rather than refuse to even read them. I've done you the courtesy of responding point-by-point to your arguments; you could do the same, if you have reason to believe my points are not legitimate. And if I've missed a valid argument that's been put forward for inclusion, please feel free to point that out as well so it can be discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rockchalk717. This is notable and a significance for subject's notability. ContentEditman (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence of that? And what is your basis for adding in redlinked children? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we're not doing this again I'm sorry. I've said my peace about this I'll just redirect you to my previous comments about this, they still remain. I still believe you never made a solid argument against its inclusion so it's staying. However I'm with Nikkimaria on the children thing though. Non-notable children shouldn't be mentioned by name in the article anywhere.--Rockchalk717 05:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and see it now. I went ahead and removed that part. Nikkimaria tried to cover up the other removal with that. ContentEditman (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just looking for evidence that might support a consensus in favour of inclusion, since what's been put forward so far has all been refuted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Schlesinger&oldid=1205515721"