Jump to content

Talk:Danese Cooper: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
I've edited this article ten times; Toddst1 has edited the article ten times; how do we know SHE doesn't have a COI, given that she is editing anonymously?
template is for cases of a close personal connection to the subject, not for accusing other editors of maybe being somehow associated with the same large movement as the article's subject
Line 2: Line 2:


{{talkheader|search=yes}}
{{talkheader|search=yes}}
{{Connected contributor multi
|User1=Open Source Guy |U1-EH=yes
|User1=Webmink |U2-EH=yes
}}



{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|1=

Revision as of 05:04, 12 February 2011

Please add a year of birth to this article if possible. Thanks. Redletternight (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has now added a birth date, though I'm curious about the source of the information. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMF hire

Danese was just hired by the Wikimedia Foundation to be the CTO. The article needs to be updated to reflect these developments.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That information was already in the article when you posted this request. Killiondude (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Baba follower?

Somebody deleted the (unsourced) mention of Danese being a follower of Meher Baba. I did a quick google and didn't find any printed mention. On the other hand, if you were to accuse her of being a follower of Meher Baba, she would have a hard time denying it. --RussNelson (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try here http://danesecooper.blogs.com/divablog/
"One factoid erasure that really surprised me was the fact that I have long been a follower of Indian guru Meher Baba. It was surprising because it is such a personal detail and because it was deleted not only from my page, but my name automatically also disappeared from another Wikipedia page listing followers. For the record, I've been following Meher Baba for more than half my life (since 1979)....",--220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is that's self-reporting. While we assume good faith on the part of editors, we don't assume good faith in biographies. We need somebody else to report on it, like somebody associated with MB himself. RussNelson (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good enough to me given the weight of evidence. Another stone on the cairn would be good but it's clearly not just an incidental rock-pile. Webmink (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's throw our principles out the window. What the heck? Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly a question of throwing our principles out the window. It's a question of how do you determine things like school attendance. For example, I attended the Plaza Elementary School in Baldwin, NY. Given my address when growing up (which you could determine through a fair bit of effort by researching deeds and locating the property that my parents owned), and by looking at the geographic split between elementary school districts, you could verify that I indeed went to Plaza. But frankly, why would anyone doubt me? To a certain extent, a BLP is going to contain interesting information which is verifiable through public records. Who are you going to believe? Me or my lying government? So, there is no citation given for Danese's attendance at The Chadwick School, UCLA, the Peace Corps, or the Ren Faire. Why not? First, because only the most pedantic of WP editors is going to ask, and secondly, because the path to verifying the fact is obvious: you ask the institution. If you have attempted that, and failed, THEN you might reasonably ask somebody else to try and to document your attempt to verify the fact yourself.
It is simply not the case that every fact about someone in a BLP is going to have a citation. Unnecessary requests for citations does not improve WikiPedia -- particularly when the number of WP editors has been dropping. Thrusting people away, as you have done here, is not clearly improving WP. Please reconsider what you are doing. RussNelson (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously misunderstand WP:V. Toddst1 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you seriously misunderstand WP:V. --RussNelson (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Love the positive attitude. Really makes one want to participate here. Webmink (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one doesn't want to participate, one should not. Nobody is forcing one. Were you expecting a pep rally for your endorsement of a lousy source? Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see. From the link you recently posted on your user page, it's clear that you have a serious WP:COI with this article as you worked closely with Danese at Sun, hence your bias. Q.E.D. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing what you are talking about is not the same as COI or indeed bias and as a long-term Wikipedian I find your allegation offensive. Contributing to Wikipedia used to be a good-faith process where one gave of what one could and others cherished and developed that contribution. Pity it's not any more, and that enforcement of rules by deletions takes priority over common-sense contribution and incremental enhancement. Oh, and at least I identify myself. Webmink (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right: Knowing what you are talking about is not the same as COI. You have a COI.Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Webmink has a point: since we don't know who you are, it's just as reasonable to suggest that you have a COI as for you to suggest that Webmink has a COI. Pseudonymous edits must be presumed to be done from a COI, don't you think? RussNelson (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming your rude and ill-judged anonymous assertion is right, care to explain what relevance it has to this edit? Webmink (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you haven't, you just posted an inappropriate "welcome to Wikipedia" COI macro there and left my valid question - how any COI could affect a comment about Meher Baba in the "personal" section here - unaddressed. Webmink (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused about original research, but specifically primary sources and WP:COI. I could post on my blog that I was santa claus, but that doesn't mean it's a reliable source, and having my buddies use it as a primary source on the article about me is well beyond encyclopedic. Toddst1 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still avoiding the question but I give up, have your game. Webmink (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hat

I wonder if the knit cap in the article image was knit by Cooper. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was. It was discussed at length at the WMF DE Developer meetup when the Volcano stranded us —Reedy 09:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name..

Nardi-Danese 948-11 —Reedy 20:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

This is one of the crappiest BLPs I've seen in a while, full of incorrect citations, missing citations, primary sources etc. I've started some tagging, but it needs much more work, probably removing large sections that rely only on poor or non-existent sources. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I see there is a fair amount of WP:COI editing going on by prominent members of the Open Source community. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve the article by locating citations, etc. Thanks for your help! RussNelson (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danese_Cooper&oldid=413430965"