Talk:Marshall Strabala

Old comments

why do edits on this page keep getting deleted? something very odd going on, (unsupported personal atatck removed by another editor).

(unsupported BLP material and personal attack material removed by another editor)

Why can these pieces of factual information keep getting deleted from the page? VERY ODD... bet these comments get deleted pretty soon too... since "someone" seems very keen to keep their version of the truth as the "real" one...

193.104.113.31 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

LEED Certified

Glad that Marshall is certified, but LEED AP's are accredited, buildings are certified. Basic LEED 101... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.183.6 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Please note: Marshall Strabala, who I personally represent, has provided me his express permission for use of his color portrait photo, which he owns all rights to. You also can see this photo posted at http://www.flickr.com/photos/architectural-design/ where it is marked Public Domain. Flickr does not offer a Public Domain category so this has been typed in under the photo caption. The photo has also been provided free of any rights to dozens of media outlets worldwide. Any questions on this permission, please email me at mpirages@piragescom.com or contact Marshall Strabala at marshall_strabala@gensler.com Thank you. (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

Images Placed on Marshall Strabala page

Comment moved from User talk:Mykjoseph#Images Placed on Marshall Strabala page

Timsdad and other Wikipedia Editors,

I hope that sufficient proof and background information has been placed to show that the Sangnam Art Hall and Marshall Strabala portrait photos are Public Domain. (See licenses and information on those image pages.) If you need anything further, please inform me.

Also, Timsdad, can you tell me why were the building photos that I posted on Marshall Strabala's page moved and considerably reduced in size to very tiny shots within a Gallery? If you visit most architects' Wikipedia pages (i.e., architects Adrian Smith, Santiago Calatrava, Frank Meier) they all are permitted larger shots (some huge shots) of their buildings on their page. Are more popular architects allowed large photos, and lesser known architects required to have tiny shots? Just asking. I would appreciate learning Wikipedia's rule on this, and sincerely hope that if there is a rule covering this, it is implemented consistently and sitewide. The minuscule shots hardly give Wikipedia visitors and especially, visually impaired people, any idea of what his buildings look like. All of my family members did not realize Wiki photos can be clicked on to see larger images, so many Wiki visitors could be missing out to be fully informed. That would be most unfortunate. Thank you for all of the great work you do.

Mykjoseph (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

Well, for starters, articles that are generally too small to have a number of large pictures on them, but require images to show the subjects (this being the perfect example) have galleries. By aligning some images left and some right, the formatting is messed up, overall decreasing the aesthetic quality of the article. Take a look at any of Wikipedia's featured articles and you'll see the most visually pleasing ways to set out text and images. As I was getting to before, because Strabala has less works than, for example, Adrian Smith, the text is not long enough to support large images.

As for all of the images with possible copyright problems, I'm still not sure how to approach it. I'm not questioning the fact that Strabala has given consent and they may be public domain, there are just so many other factors that I have very little expertise in handling, and I'm trying to make them visible in the community to get some more experienced editors that know about copyrighting to help out. This particular image; I am worried about, as you have (in a way) described that the image is from flickr. But there are also many problems with copyrighted images on flickr being uploaded by people and then people uploading them on Wikipedia, see here.

In future, I recommend that your upload your images on the Wikimedia Commons, or they will get deleted if not used in articles and may have copyright problems. Also, when uploading an image from flickr, it would make everyone's lives easier if you chose the "A work from Flickr" (Wikipedia) or "It is someone else's work from Flickr" (Commons). This way we can verify if the licensing and copyrights are okay for use on Wikimedia projects.

It's all a bit confusing, but the one important thing is that Wikipedia is very sensitive about files and copyrights. If you don't upload something correctly or specify the correct licensing, it will get deleted. Oh, and in future, try to use the 'Preview' button to preview your edits to see if they work instead of 'Save page', this way it's much easier for other users to see what edits you've made, and explain your edits in the edit summary box. --timsdad ^(talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Timsdad,

Thank you for the explanation that answers most of my questions. One key point to clarify for you. The image of Marshall is not FROM Flickr. I personally placed it in Flickr, but it is not FROM there. It is FROM Marshall Strabala who personally gave it to me. So, it is not a Flickr image. It is Marshall's. I did try posting the image, as you suggested, from Wikimedia Commons, but the instructions and process are flawed and I had no luck whatsoever. So instead, I uploaded directly to Wikipedia. I am sure I am not the only one having problems posting photos there. I have placed Joan Mills email, (Joan is Marshall's wife) as explanation, and I am not sure what else I can do to prove Public Domain. Let me know if anything further is needed, including if you want an email from Marshall I can try to see if he has time to send one. If you want to give me your phone number, I can have Marshall call you direct from Gensler's office in Shanghai or send you a personal email if needed.

Thank you again for your assistance.

P.S. regarding gallery photos. It seems most illogical that shorter stories get smaller images. Shorter stories obviously have more space to fill so it seems that larger photos would be most appropriate to fill that space. In contrast, longer stories will get more cluttered with large photos and lots of text. So, Wikipedia's (and your) thinking on this matter make little sense. That's my opinion. Based on your idea, I guess this means I will need to considerably extend the length of Marshall's page and then we get larger photos. Will do. Mykjoseph (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

I really appreciate the lengths at which you are willing to go to to demonstrate you are telling the truth. I completely believe you, but it's not a matter of people believing if you are telling the truth or not, it's all very technical, and to be honest, I have no idea how any of that works. We'll leave it all for a while and see if people notice the possible deletion discussions I have placed up.

I see where you are coming from on your view of large photos to fill up the space left by no text, etc... but that's not how a Wikipedia article should look. There are so many pages in the 'Wikipedia:' namespace that will teach you the basics and the advanced of building an article. Maybe you should spend a bit of time cruising the MoS, that should help you out. But yes, I think we need to increase the length of Strabala's page, after all, he is a leading designer for a few of the soon-to-be world's tallest buildings. --timsdad ^(talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

According to the the Burj Khalifa article (and the several seemingly reliable sources supporting the fact in the article, including this clearly reliable source) and the Adrian Smith (architect) article, Adrian Smith, not Marshall Strabala was the architect of Burj Khalifa. The only source in this article stating otherwise is this one and it may not be reliable. Are there any clearly RSs that support him being the architect of this building? Is there another explanation? I'm going to remove mention of this until it can be explained. Novaseminary (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, you are very quick to act but sadly you act without having any facts. Here it is. The Burj Khalifa (formerly called Burj Dubai), like many major buildings worldwide, has multiple architects involved because they require years, not months, to design and plan. Sure, while Adrian Smith, who Mr. Strabala has worked with, may claim that he is “Chief Architect” or other title, there are probably 6-12 architects that can save they had a hand in designing the Burj Khalifa. If you still question this, please talk with a Wikipedia editor who is knowledgable about architecture. There are many reliable mand credible media sources that help demonstrate Mr. Strabala’s involvement in Burj Khalifa, please see these sources many of which are cited in the story, including some from the UAE, where the building stands

Arabian Business, Dubai, UAE: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/architect-reveals-burj-dubai-height-81846.html

Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/features/6556005.html

E-Architect, UK: http://www.e-architect.co.uk/dubai/burj_dubai.htm

Houston Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/09/27/newscolumn2.html

Gensler’s own press release announcing Strabala joins firm (release no longer live on Gensler.com): http://www.officenewswire.com/1642

Urbanatomy, Shanghai, http://old.urbanatomy.com/index.php/i-ahearts-shanghai/features/4474-the-master-builder

It would be great if you could devote time, as you did here, to some of the dozens of Wikipedia pages on architects and other business professionals that have no sources and are poorly done, unlike this page. You perform such a wonderful service for Wikipedia. Thank you. - Joan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.92.229 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside your personal attack, I note that I asked for facts and posted here (and noted as much in my edit summary). I did not engage in edit wars or make a change wirthout explanation. WP is not a site for people to use as a promotional vehicle, so I did act quickly. Regardless, with this edit, I have restored mention of the building, I hope in better context. Novaseminary (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

With these edits, I tried to accurately reflect Strabala's involvement with this building. Per the NY Times and other reliable sources, Adrian Smith was the lead architect (or at least ended up as that), but Strabala definitely played a role in designing the building. To leave it as just a mention that Strabala designed the building seems to imply he was the only one, or ever the lead, which the RSs do not seem to support. Novaseminary (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Page Edits

After careful review of the page copy, I suggest these page edits:

1. Under the heading “Professional Positions,” it states that “ In 2010, Strabala left Gensler under circumstances still in dispute as of December 2010.” And sources this information to an unknown Shanghai China-based online publication of questionable reputation called "Urbanatomy." http://old.urbanatomy.com/index.php/i-ahearts-shanghai/features/4474-the-master-builder So as to position this in a more neutral fashion as opposed to the current one of a large global company Gensler vs. one lone architect, and not providing Strabala an opportunity for his side of this situation, I suggest changing simply to read: “In 2010, Strabala left Gensler “ (which will be sourced using Houston Business Journal story and not the Urbanatomy publication. All Urbanatomy sources would be stripped from the page. This would be a much fairer and more neutral way of providing this information, without getting into a legal situation which for all we know could be inaccurate (sourced by only one unknown Chinese publication) or already settled.

2. Personal Information For over two years, Strabala’s page has had personal information about where he lives and this information has been approved on numerous occasions by multiple editors. NovaSeminary used his own Wikipedia rule of “cruft,” which he never explained, to delete at 15:12 on 13 May: "==Personal== As of September 2010, Strabala divides his time between homes in Shanghai,Houston, and Chicago." and sources, Houston Business Journal, Marshall Strabala gives new meaning to 'super-tall', Sept 27 2010, http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/09 What is the rule of “cruft” that NovaSeminary has evidently created for himself. I know the definition of cruft and don’t believe it applies. And, more importantly, why is this information about where he lives not appropriate when the same information is included on thousands of other personal pages for business executives on Wikipedia. This simple one sentence about where Strabala lives tells readers he lives in three different cities on different continents. That’s different than most people, and not something that the readers would otherwise know by reading the story. Afterall, Strabala could live in one city and have offices in three cities, but he doesn’t.

NovaSeminary states that Mr. Strabala is known for his work but not his residences so where he lives is not pertinent. Well, the very same could be used as an excuse to delete reference to the residences for hundreds of business executives like Steve Jobs, architect John C Harkness, archictect Campaion Platt]] and Todd Stitzer, all whom have their single or multiple residence(s) mentioned on their pages. So, unless NovaSeminary is suggesting that the residence references of these and hundreds of other pages for business executives and other celebrities be deleted in WP, then I suggest Strabala's one-sentence residence references stay in. It implies nothing, it simply states the fact and it is properly sourced.

3. LEED Certification For more than two years, Strabala’s page had included this copy: “A member of the American Institute of Architects, Strabala is LEED certified which recognizes that distinguishes building professionals with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward green building practices and principles. [3]” The publication Architecture Week was used as the source (see http://www.architectureweek.com/2008/1210/people_and_places.html) In April, NovaSeminary deleted reference to the LEED certification, without any official WP reason, and for a time NovaSeminary had wanted to know the specific type of LEED certification (there are five I believe) that Strabala had. Well, that type of minutia is not sourced information, but his LEED certification has been sourced in Architecture Week and many other credible media that have covered him. For example, see EArchitectUK, http://www.e-architect.co.uk/architects/marshall_strabala.htm and Houston Construction News: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KjLBix6LrbIJ:constructionnews.net/pdf_download.lasso?file%3D200605_HO.pdf+marshall+strabala+leed+certification&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi1yB0pxxnldG3TfpJkTd1cADeikvrvcpRfDX9VjNPARwViyTH4vPpWnqxPIV8gDF2BiqTz9ulJPKLA5MvgGCtlgO_SLaaIR7rUGZvssU1_PLgO3T2l9RBkTEmJ4Rk-3jiP28b7&sig=AHIEtbSS10LRHMnx0WK18JByc99SF5H8lw&pli=1

This LEED certification is pertinent because it is a level of certification that relatively few architects have received. I would like to have that LEED reference put back in the story. Obviously, if someone wants to verify what specific LEED certification that Strabala has, they can contact the USGBC (US Green Building Council) themselves for that minutia. I wouldn't expect them to look it up and find it on Wikipedia. This isn't LEED-ipedia, it's Wikipedia. Thank you. Mykjoseph (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have noted elsewhere, in several places, including this talk page, Mykjoseph has claimed to personally represent the subject at his PR firm. So I would view these proposed edits accordingly and ask Mykjoseph to clarify his relationship with the subject. But focusing on the substance, here are my quick thoughts (in the order Mykjoseph raised them).

1) The language is neutral and comports with the source which was added by Mykjoseph with this edit. If this source is questionable, why did Mykjoseph add it? It certainly appears the author and photographer had significant access to Strabala in writing it.

2) This person is notable for his work. His residences are irrelevant to that, and in light of the context seem to be intended to portray the subject in a certain light. Perhaps if there were more personal information to balance this out (his wife, publicly reported non-architecture pursuits, etc.) this would be ok (WP:UNDUE). And while other articles having cruft is not a sufficient justification for this one, at least one example given only lists the residence (and the primary residence, not every place the person might own or rent property) in the infobox, not the text. That would be less objectionable here per UNDUE, but I still think it adds nothing to the article and ahould be left out.

3) As noted in my ES, LEED certification applies to buildings, designers are accredited and there are very different types of accreditation (per the accreditor's website). This can certainly go back in after being clarfied and properly sourced (I had initially tagged it as such but no clarification came).

This article should not serve as an advertisment for Strabala. Novaseminary (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

With this edit, I edited the article reference footnote to include the actual title of the magazine and publisher discussed in point 1 of this section. I am not convinced that this is not an RS, especially since Mykjoseph himself added it, and it was referenced in the talk section above this section by the IP that signed the post as "Joan" (and from which Mykjoseph has also apparently edited recently). Novaseminary (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, I will take up my ongoing questions in this matter in coming days with DR. Your subsequent comments have provided nothing new. I learned of Urbanatomy's questionable reputation in my private emails and phone conversations with colleagues in China; sorry, I do not have copies of those emails/conversations to share with you. I do not have to answer your questions on COI. I have addressed those matters previously many times. This isn't a courtroom and you are not the judge.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So you agree with my conclusions above related to content? Somehow I doubt it. But this is the place to work toward consensus. I'm ready as always to try. As for the reliableness of the that's Shanghai source, that very article was covered by a CNN Asia news blog, and the magazine is cited elsewhere in WP. And you felt comfortable enough with its accuracy to add it to the article, having at least in the past represented Strabala. It would take more than your private emails and phone calls to knock it out now (speaking of unsourced allegations...). And you don't even seem to be challenging the accuracy of the minimal language that is there (which doesn't take sides and notes only that there was some sort of dispute, per the source which recounted at least one significant interview with Strabala. Novaseminary (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, you have imagined any progress toward resolution and any agreement on my part. I completely disagree with your comments on my points #1, 2 and 3 above, and per my earlier detail provided above on those points. I will take to Editing Assistance in coming days for their review. Thank you.Mykjoseph (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, you just deleted my sentence explaining that Strabala, a community group and Chicago law were in opposition to the Zoning Committee's actions on the Project cited under Local Activism. This information was taken directly from the Chicago Tribune piece and helps explain that the project was much disliked, but passed anyway. That is relevant information for readers to know That overview is now gone with your quick edit. I will add that to my list of questions for Editing Assistance to review.Mykjoseph (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete the sentence, I reworked it (and I was the editor who added the section to begin with). But I agree with your subsequent edit inserting the quote. It would be odd to ask for others' opinions in a case where we agree (and nobody else disagrees), but by all means. Novaseminary (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In further reference to the that's Shanghai piece, it is also listed on the main profile for the Flickr site that you, Mykjoseph, added to the article in the EL section, and which purport to be Strabala's Flickr pages. If it is good enough for Strabala to list on his own Flickr page (in addition to the covereage of the article noted above), why not here? As an aside, that Flickr page also links to this WP article as a "Resource" about Strabala. And see the "Question" section below for more examples of this WP article being pointed to for promotional purposes. Novaseminary (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In further response to Mykjoseph's point number 2, WP:NPF (a WP policy) states: "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability..." There is no reason to include Strabala's residences since it is not relevant to his notability. Novaseminary (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tesoro Building and Stalking Behavior

NovaSeminary, can you tell me why the Tesoro Building in San Antonio was deleted from Marshall Strabala's list of building projects? It was sourced properly and he did oversee its design. Is WP (or you) the arbiter of what building qualifies as a building worth mentioning on a page or not? If so, I can find hundreds of buildings by other architects profiled on WP that I guess should also be deleted. Would you like a list of those buildings?

And, can you tell me why have you been "stalking" and seemingly working feverishly over the past several weeks to diminish Marshall Strabala's' accomplishments and work at every point possible? You completely deleted his work on the Burj Dubai, until I argued otherwise. You deleted his LEED certification although it was properly sourced. You deleted reference to his residences while hundreds of other business professionals are cited that way. You deleted in the opening graph that Strabala has designed three of the world's tallest buildings (which is no doubt exceptional) and without justification. I see a definite pattern here that I would appreciate an explanation. You have edited Marshall's page dozens of times over the past six weeks, and many days have done little other editing than to his page. Why the pre-occupation? Is the Marshall Strabala page one of the most important on WP? Based on you actions, it must be? If this issue isn't answered to my satisfaction, I will be glad to share with Editor Assistance for their interpretation of your most unusual and bizzare behavior.Mykjoseph (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

One could ask why you are so concerned with this article. You have edited it many more times over a far longer period than I have. But, your declaration earlier on this very talk page and elswhere that you personally represent Strabla (or did, you have not clarified your current relationship) gives us at least part of that answer. My interest in this article is part of my general interest in preventing WP from being used to house fluff marketing/PR pieces; to follow WP:NPOV. I haven't tried to diminish anything, merely accurately recount the facts as the sources present them (I have no personal knowledge of any of this, after all) and to do so in a neutral way.

As for your question about the Tesoro Building, as I understand it, Strabala has worked on scores of buildings. Of course, listing them all would not be worthwhile (Strabala doesn't even do that on his own website). There needs to be some way to decide which to mention. Those included in the list are considered "notable" so as to avoid focusing on the wrong buildings. As a rough proxy, we should list them if they have a WP article. You might want to take a look at WP:EMBED. Novaseminary (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Before taking my current three questions for additional Dispute Resolution, I have a question to ask you about a past sentence that had been for many months or possibly a few years in the second graph of the Marshall Strabala article and seems fitting. It read (This is slightly shortened version of it):

“Along with the Burj Dubai, he has designed three of what will soon become the world’s ten tallest buildings, including the Shanghai Tower[2] and the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center.”

(See this earlier version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=307509620&oldid=307443133) I would like to put that back in as it serves as a key summary of his “supertall” work. I am unsure when it was deleted and why it was.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it implies that he himself designed them. Per the RSs we know that he was only part of a team that designed the Burj, and he didn't even lead the team. That sentence certainly implies more than is supported by the sources. And I would further note that the version you cited to above is filled with exactly the POV fluff that doesn't belong on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I will take it up with Dispute Resolution. You responded as I expected.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What part of my reply do you disagree with? Do you think that language does not imply he was the main designer behind those buildings, or do you disagree with the RSs and think he was the driving force? If one says that an author "wrote three of the ten best-selling novels" wouldn't that lead you to believe s/he was the sole author? And in this case there was a whole firm designing the buildings, with many people who deserve credit (as you mention in a talk section above) so the implication leaves a very inacurrate impression.

The language in there now accurately states his role on Burj. If you want to accurately state his role in other buildings (consistent with WP:UNDUE, etc.) then great. But don't gloss over the facts so this article can be used as a promotional piece. In fact, somebody claiming to be Joan Mills (same name as Strabala's wife) used very similar language and pointed to this very WP in a promotional way in a comment to a blog post discussing, of all things, the that's Shanghai article. And used similar language also pointing here to WP with this blog comment and this post. (And without the pointer to WP, used similar language in another blog comment. And with a pointer to WP, but also acknowledging Adrian Smith's role, sort of, in this blog post comment. And another by "Joan" egregiously hyping, in my opinion, this very WP article with this comment.) I trust that you don't want WP used for promotion, so let's only add neutral, non-promotional language. Novaseminary (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Burj Dubai.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Burj Dubai.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Protest of High-Rise Development

NovaSeminary, this was a city meeting, not a protest, and you should know better. You are so good at making things inflammatory and negative --- that are obviously not. If this heading isn't reverted soon to Community Involvement or another more WP-appropriate and neutral heading, I will make this item #4 or #5 for Dispute Resolution. Thank you and have a wonderful day. Mykjoseph (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:OWN. I think "Local activism" accurately and neutrally describes the paragraph. "Community involvement" is far less accurate and sounds like a press release. Since we couldn't agree on a short description, I thought expanding it would be a way to do avoid oversimplification. I'll take another crack. Novaseminary (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I still prefer "local activism", but I have no problem (other than its lack of elegance or descriptive value) with what Mykjoseph changed the section heading to with this edit, so I'll leave it alone. Novaseminary (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I have split the difference (as I see it) between Mykjoseph's preferred "Community invovlement" and my preferred "Local activism", by renaming the section "Local involvement". Novaseminary (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

RSs?

Does anyone have any support for the E-architect pages cited in the article (notes 1, 8, and 9 in this latest version) as being reliable sources? Are these pages on the site edited/reported or are they user generated? The page cited in the first note, especailly, seems not to be a news piece, but a profile. Per this page, profiles on that site are sold advertising pieces, not news pieces. If that is the case with these, third-party secondary sources would be much better refs to support the facts supported by these sources. Novaseminary (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to adding mention of two lawsuits against Strabala, I removed his own e-architect site as a source and the corresponding facts that weren't otherwise sourced with this edit. The two pages for particular buildings are still there and tagged. I think they should go, too, but I will wait a bit. Novaseminary (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the two remaining E-architect citations with this edit. They seemed to be to pages on the site that are user provided as opposed to the in-house author-written material (though this is not entirely clear). I also removed the facts sourced to those sources that I couldn't find in an RS and one fact that was not even sourced to one of the E-architect pages. Novaseminary (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Reformatting of Page

NovaSeminary, can you provide me a WP reason for why the page was suddenly and considerably reformatted on June 1, 2011, after having used the previous format for three years without a problem, and without consultation with other editors? Suddenly out of nowhere, the page is formatted according to each of Mr. Strabala's employers instead of by listing his works over the years as it had been. This format is contrary to every architect page that I can find on Wikipedia. (see Adrian Smith (architect) for example. Based on your actions, you appear to want to cause considerable trouble on the page on an almost daily basis rather than improve it. With the old format, a reader could easily see the entire list of buildings that Strabala had designed. Now, a reader has to spend considerable time and effort wading through the copy sentence by sentence to find buildings he has done. Architects are not measured according to what firms that they have worked for -- as you have set it up here. They are measured by their achievements -- as the page had been previously set-up. I can add this to my discussion with Dispute Resolution if this isn't resolved to my satisfaction. And, I will include a request to DR that you be barred from any future editing of this page. Thank you.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The list of buildings was an embedded list. Per WP:EMBED, such information should be relayed in prose as a general rule. WP is an encyclopedia, not a resume. The recounting of his projects is perfectly appropriate as prose. WP is not here to serve as a vehicle to most effectively tout Strabala's accomplishments.

Many other architects' articles (including Adrian Smith (architect)) are terrible. If they are ever to get to good article status, they would have to be reworked (as I did to this article). How you or your (former) client would prefer the article look is irrelevant to the extent it violates WP policies, guidelines, and consensus. I fear your, at least former, COI is leading you to put interests other than WP's first as you edit this article.

And please do not make threats related to this article. That is textbook WP:OWN behavior. This article is not yours. They won't work and could backfire and get you blocked (for COI or other reasons). Novaseminary (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will take it up with DR. Thank you and have a wonderful day!Mykjoseph (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC) In addition, this quote below that you have added is a violation of the Red Flag rule that requires 2 sources for such controversial copy. I will bring this to DR as well. "In a 2007 interview, Adrian Smith noted that ###### was up for but did not make partner at SOM in what Smith described as a "power move by the New York office."Mykjoseph (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Strabala didn't make partner, right? Or else that would have been noted in the same sources that noted he left SOM as associate partner and those sources are then wrong. That can't be your problem with the sentence.

This quote, attributed because it is pretty harsh toward SOM (not Strabala), explains why, in one notable collegue's opinion, Strabala failed to make partner. You are not objecting to the "power play" language, are you?

If not, that leaves the fact that Strabala was up for partner as the only fact not covered in multiple sources. How is that inflamatory? And even if it is, it is properly attributed (to the person making the statement and to the RS in which it appears) and is highly relevant, and as a single sentence capping that particular stage of Strabala's career, it meets WP:UNDUE. Novaseminary (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I further refined the sentence with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It still does not meet the Red Flag rule requirements. It's added to my growing DR list and I will cc WP legal on these matters since several of your edits touch on possible legal issues. Thank you and hope it's a nice day in Virginia! Mykjoseph (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Which of the three bullets of WP:REDFLAG do you think this violates? Is BusinessWeek not mainstream enough for you? I'll give you a while to remove your legal threat, but I do note that you were previously warned about this behavior. Making a threat and then saying it is not a threat does not make a threat not a threat. But if you feel strongly, and you still represent Strabala, feel free to follow WP:LIBEL. It has a convenient email link for you to use. Novaseminary (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Format of page

NovaSeminary, in the past few days, a colleague checked with two WP editors (see information below) that have considerably more editing experience on architecture and architects than you or me, and both said that building lists with prose is fine for use in architects' pages. What do you say to that? If you don’t have a good explanation for supporting your prose-only format (and making Mr. Strabala’s page likely the only architect’s page on Wikipedia in all prose) then I can revert the Strabala page back to its prose and list format. Or, if you still disagree, I can take this (and my other points) up with DR this week and let them know of your refusal to accept this feedback from 3 editors, including me. Thank you and have a nice day.

See response from Amandajm under “ Lists” graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DavidSycamore

See response from Acroterion under "Quick Question" heading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Acroterion

Mykjoseph (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am taken aback. This brand new editor, DavidSycamore, is a collegue of yours, Mykjoseph? I wonder if he has a similar COI? With one of his four edits on WP as of my writing this, he just edited a previous comment of yours on this page with this edit which is highly inappropriate. And with two other edits seems to have made the requests you, Mykjospeh, noted here and here. And yet, in neither of those posts did he even mention this article. This talk page is the place to discuss this article. And please do not meat puppet or otherwise violate WP:SOCK.

As for the substance of your problem with prose, in the section above I noted why I reformatted the article to comply with WP guidelines. And if you look at the archotect articles listed as FAs or even GAs on the Architecture project, you'll see they are prose, without lists (e.g., William Bruce (architect)).

There has not been feedback on this from three editors including you. There has been feedback from you, an editor with at least a former COI. Again, please do not violate WP:MEAT. Please do follow the normal dispute resolution processes if you would like to take this further.

Novaseminary (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Preparing note for DR. One reason WP is losing very talented writers as has been widely publicized -- is editors like you. Congrats. You must be proud.Mykjoseph (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Link

I will discuss link with DR, not with you. Thank you. Mykjoseph (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

New Language

NovaSeminary, you have recently altered copy to read that Strabala "has been credited" and "has been reported" to have designed buildings. Why is this? These are unnecessary, namby-pamby words that are unsupported and "invented" by you. I imagine you have added these words given the recent lawsuits against Strabala, that I understand in architecture circles will be thrown out of court because of no merit. They amount to harassment. You might keep in mind that defendants in the US are innocent until proven guilty so these legal actions should make no difference in copy whatsoever, given the words previously as stated are based on sourced material, and your words "credited" and "reported" -- are not; they are purely "your invention." Wikipedia is not supposed to present orignal research, or didn't you know that. I will be writing DR soon on several of your edits, so if you disagree with this, I will gladly add this point to my growing list. Also, all architects (i.e., Adrian Smith) as you know have a short list of Notable Buildings in their Infobox. You have deleted Strabala's buildings for no reason. If this edit is not undone, I will present your completely biased and unsupported change to DR, as well. Have a lovely day!Mykjoseph (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An accusation of bias from somebody who has claimed to personally represent Strabala is quite something. Anyway, I also noted that his departure from Gensler under disputed circumstances was reported for the same reason (which is softer than the "let go" from Gensler language used in the source, which is still listed on Strabala's Flickr profile, though the WP link has been removed as has the media contact point to Michael Pirages). The fact is, there is much in dispute about what Strabala did, claimed to do to (including, it would seem, to reporters), and what his former firms did or didn't do. It is not our job to take sides, as you seem to me to have done. We could go with less eqivocation based on some sources, but then we would need to go stronger the other way, too, in noting how Strabala was let go from Gensler, didn't make partner, etc., to avoid POV. It also strikes me as interesting that Strabala was sued for using nearly identicle language to that you added to this article and sought repeatedly to reinsert (the 3 of the 10 tallest buildings language). Please try not to let your relationship or former relationship or whatever cloud you judgment here. Novaseminary (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, no doubt my judgement is a lot less cloudy that your biased judgement, given your many unsupported and unwarranted aedits Mykjoseph (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mykjoseph, if you intend to seek dispute resolution, please do so now instead of using it as a vague threat against others editing this page. You've had more than enough time now to formulate your request. Regards, Danger (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Danger, I will take my sweet time, and you know little of my issues with NovaSeminary. Stay out of what is none of your business. Mykjoseph (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As an editor and administrator, disruptive behavior is in fact my business. Editors who act in a disruptive manner, which includes edit warring and threatening other editors, may be blocked. If edit warring continues on this page, it may be protected to prevent further disruption. --Danger (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Full name / article move?

Per WP:UCN, and the relevant examples there (Bill Clinton, H. H. Asquith, Snoop Dogg, and Hulk Hogan), the person's full name should appear in bold in the lead, though the most commonly used name serves as the article title. There seems little doubt that Strabala's full name is "Jay Marshall Strabala". In various places "Marshall Strabala", "J. Marshall Strabala", and "Jay Marshall Strabala" are used by RSs (and press releases). It seems that "J. Marshall Strabala" is used most often, and by the subject himself (per his firm's website), so I propose moving the article to "J. Marshall Strabala" and leaving the lead "Jay Marshall Strabala". Novaseminary (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Per the Bill Clinton page, Bill Clinton, his most common,lyh used name, is the name of the page, but there is reference to Mr. Clinton's full name later. Contrary to your opinion, there are many hundreds more citations (news media stories and online citations) using Marshall Strabala than using Jay Marshall Strabala. So, I would keep the page called Marshall Strabala, and the Jay Marshall Strabala can be referenced as his likely (we don't know for sure, do we?) birthname and a secondary name. 13 of 16 citations (81 percent) used on his Wikipedia page currently use Marshall Strabala. Mykjoseph (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Also see results below of this Google search for evidence of the preponderance of use of "Marshall Strabala" versus "Jay Marshall Strabala". Strabala also uses the shorter version of his name on his Facebook, LinkedIn and Flickr pages, as you will see from the Google search results. And all media stories on his Flickr page use Marshall Strabala, not J. or Jay Marshall Strabala, see http://www.flickr.com/people/architectural-design/:

Marshall Strabala: http://www.google.com/search?q=marshall%20strabala&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

Jay Marshall Strabala: http://www.google.com/search?q=marshall%20strabala&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np#q=jay+marshall+strabala&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Xgt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&prmd=ivnso&ei=6JwITumLI4rrgQeqkK3yBg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cfd4938828d57dcb&biw=1165&bih=728

(Many of the Jay Marshall Strabala mentions have been in the past month only.) Mykjoseph (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, see Google News archived results on Marshall Strabala: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marshall+strabala&scoring=n&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#ds=n&pq=jay%20marshall%20strabala&hl=en&authuser=0&cp=0&gs_id=30&xhr=t&q=marshall+strabala&qe=bWFyc2hhbGwgc3RyYWJhbGE&qesig=w9MH7M4beDCGIJb1i__cbQ&pkc=AFgZ2tlq-LN_jwF6sZrLAJqmR50hXBtnqJj50v_7w8eAG2JfDc2qU-7BrZ-jFjg8kA12xxjzKJHIj4y__CVOMwiHT_7PPPKpzQ&pf=p&sclient=psy&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=marshall+strabala&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=60f956f31b39d940&biw=1270&bih=895

...compared to Google news archive results on Jay Marshall Strabala http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marshall+strabala&scoring=n&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#ds=n&pq=j%20marshall%20strabala&hl=en&authuser=0&cp=3&gs_id=76&xhr=t&q=jay+marshall+strabala&qe=amF5IG1hcnNoYWxsIHN0cmFiYWxh&qesig=Lch7WJKFt2au6spuX2Xt5w&pkc=AFgZ2tlq-LN_jwF6sZrLAJqmR50hXBtnqJj50v_7w8eAG2JfDc2qU-7BrZ-jFjg8kA12xxjzKJHIj4y__CVOMwiHT_7PPPKpzQ&pf=p&sclient=psy&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=jay+marshall+strabala&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=60f956f31b39d940&biw=1270&bih=895

...and J Marshall Strabala http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marshall+strabala&scoring=n&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#sclient=psy&hl=en&authuser=0&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=j+marshall+strabala&pbx=1&oq=j+marshall+strabala&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1545l1889l8l2l2l0l0l0l0l197l383l0.2l2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=60f956f31b39d940&biw=1270&bih=895

Mykjoseph (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

• Issue 1: In June, Editor 1 added this copy: “In 2010, (architect's last name) was reported to have been let go from Gensler under circumstances still in dispute as of December 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala In recent days, Editor 1 edited this comment to read that the architect was "let go" from the firm. This information was sourced to “That’s Shanghai” magazine, an entertainment/listings magazine published by Urbanatomy in Shanghai China at http://old.urbanatomy.com/index.php/i-ahearts-shanghai/features/4474-the-master-builder This sentence fits the WP:REDFLAG rule: “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.” If Editor 1 believes this exceptional claim about a supposed (legal) dispute and that the architect was "let go" that the architect had six months ago is appropriate then I believe he would need an exceptional source to support it. Editor 2 does not believe that Urbanatomy’s “That’s Shanghai” magazine, a monthly magazine with an unknown circulation geared to English-speaking residents and visitors, can be considered exceptional. Editor 2 believes it would be best to state that the architect left Gensler in 2010 and not make reference to the circumstances. This could be easily sourced with various sources.

• Issue 2, Prose/List Format: For more than two years, the page had been in a professional and concise prose and Building list format, with prose describing his background and key achievements, and a bulleted list or gallery of about 10 photos of buildings he had designed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=408403761&oldid=407687287 This format has been approved by multiple editors over the past two years. In May, Editor 1 said that the Gallery had to be deleted because WP is moving away from having galleries of photos on people. Editor 2 does not know if this is true. In the meantime, most other architects that you find on WP do have galleries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=426921654&oldid=426914530

In May/June 2011, Editor 2 made additional edits when he deleted the list of buildings altogether and converted the page to be entirely prose as it now is. Editor 2 feels that the page should have a combination of both prose and building list, as most every architect on WP is formatted in this manner. See examples at Architect Helmut Jahn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Jahn Architect Eero Saarinen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eero_Saarinen Should the page be prose and building list format, or prose format only?

• Issue 3, Notable Buildings: In WP, most every major architect has his/her buildings that they are known for designing highlighted in their Infobox. This was the case for about two years on this page as well true for two years or so on this page as well until in June Editor 1 edited it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=433390089 , and deleted these buildings (Shanghai Tower, Burj Khalifa, 5 Canada Square, LG Arts Center, Hess Tower) and his reasong was that they are not “his (the architect's) work.” Editor 2 says this is contrary to possibly hundreds of architects featured on WP have their “Buildings” posted in their Infoboxes, whether the architect owns the firm or not when the work was designed. See these examples: Adrian Smith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Smith_(architect)

Daniel Libeskind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Libeskind Should the notable Buildings be mentioned in the architect's Infobox, or not? And if not, why not?

• Issue 4, Introductory Graphs: For a few years, this page had a description in the second graph: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=358843977 -- that mentioned that this architect had designed the Burj Khalifa, as well as two other supertall buildings, the Shanghai Tower and the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center. Editor 2 thought this was relevant because there are less than 5 architects in the world that have worked on more than two of the world's supertall buildings. This architect has worked on three of them. Editor 2 had previously summarized this simply as being that this architect “designed” these buildings (not trying to imply that there weren’t any others. Editor 1 thought this was too promotional. In May, Editor 1 deleted that copy, removed reference to the types of buildings this architect had designed (i.e., office buildings, performing arts venues), and changed it to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=428751539. Now with Editor 1 edits, the reader does not learn what types of buildings that this architect has designed. And the reader doesn’t learn that this architect has designed any other supertall buildings until the reader gets to the SOM section in the middle of the page. In fact, the reader never learns on the page that the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center is one of the tallest buildings in the world, unless they click the building’s page link and visit that separate page. And the reader doesn’t know that he designed Shanghai Tower and that it will be the world’s second tallest building, until the Gensler section of the page. Should the description of the architect's work be restored closer to the second graph cited above (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=35884397 ) and again reference the type of buildings that the architect has designed, or, should it use the current generic language of "design of notable buildings"?

• Issue 5, Personal Information: For about two years, the page has had this brief mention to where he lives and it has been approved by multiple editors. It had read," As of September 2010, (architect's last name) divides his time between homes in Shanghai, Houston, and Chicago." and used the source of Houston Business Journal, http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/09

On May 13, 2011, Editor 1 used his own rule of “cruft,” to delete this sentence. Editor 1 stated that the architect' residences are not pertinent because the architect is not known for his homes but rather for his Architecture work. This could also be said for these business executives who are not known for their homes either: Apple head Steve Jobs whose residence is mentioned, and he is known for computers. Todd Stitzer, a business executive whose two residences are mentioned and he is known for his business leadership. Architect John C Harkness whose residence is mentioned and he is known for his architecture. French Architect Jean Nouvel whose residence in Paris is mentioned and he is known for his architecture. Business executive Bonnie Newman, whose residence is mentioned, and she is known for her educational positions held. Should the residences be mentioned or not?

• Issue 6, LEED Certification: For more than two years, this page included this copy:

“A member of the American Institute of Architects, (architect's last name) is LEED certified which recognizes that distinguishes building professionals with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward green building practices and principles.” The well-known trade publication Architecture Week was used as the source. (Update to Editors: It would be more accurate for the words “LEED certified” to be changed to “LEED accredited.”) In April, Editor 1 deleted reference to the LEED certification, without an official WP reason, and for a time Editor 1 wanted to know the specific type of LEED certification (there are five I believe) that this architect had. According to Editor 2, that type of minutia is not sourced information, but his LEED certification has been sourced in many respected media that have covered him. For example, EArchitectUK and Houston Construction News. This LEED accreditation is pertinent because it is a level of certification that relatively few architects have received. Editor 1 points out that most architects do not typically communicate the specific type of LEED accreditation that they have. Instead they simply list it as “LEED AP.” See examples here from LinkedIn and other sources: http://www.linkedin.com/in/robandersonarchitect http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothykentaia Should the "LEED AP certification" referenced be used or not?

• Issue 7, Website Link: For some months, this architect’s WP page has had the link for his 2DEFINE Architecture website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=422710552 In late May, Editor 1 said that this link could not be on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=prev&oldid=431024085 At some point, Editor 2 suggested that this link be posted but called “2Define Architecture website instead of “Official Website.” Editor 2 said this because saying “Official Website implies that it is the architect’s official website, but in reality it is his firm’s. The firm includes other partners so it can’t be both his “Official Website” and the firm’s . See Editor 1's edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=prev&oldid=433067126 Should the site link be used or not?

• Issue 8, Lawsuits: Within about 24 hours after the lawsuits were filed by the architect's two prior employers, Editor 1 had added the suits to the second sentence of the page, and to a special new graph called "Employer Lawsuits. Editor 2 attempted to add a sentence to balance and make this more neutral. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=434885152&oldid=434845956

Editor 1 did not accept this and undid the edit. Editor 2 wants neutral/balanced language added to both the second sentence and the Employer Lawsuit graph to support that: 1) There is an assumption of innocence as it applies to civil cases (I am not a lawyer so I am unsure how to phrase this), which not every reader would know. and 2) that there is a problem in the US with the filing of frivolous lawsuits (as these two suits are expected to be, from my architect sources). Frivolous lawsuits have been raised as an issue across many business fields, from medicine to politics, and covered by many US media outlets. Should the copy be kept as is or should language be added per points 1 and 2 above?

• Issue 9, Page Name: Marshall Strabala is the architect's most commonly used name and cited in more than 90 percent of the media stories and other online citations. Jay Marshall Strabala is the likely birthname (we do not know if there is an additional middle or family name?) according to two recent Chicago stories (WLS Radio, Sun Times) about the lawsuits. Should Marshall Strabala or Jay Marshall Strabala be the page name? Following Bill Clinton's page naming protocol, the page is called "Bill Clinton" (his most commonly used name) but there is reference to his full name. Should this page follow the same format?

• Issue 10, Architect's name: Related to Issue 9 (see above), should Marshall Strabala be the name first used to start the lead sentence of the article, as it has been, or Jay Marshall Strabala, his evident birth name? Again, most sources cited on the page use the short version. Two stories this month on the lawsuits use Jay Marshall Strabala.

Mykjoseph (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I will briefly address each of Mykjoseph's issues in order. As a general matter, any commenters to this RfC should know that has Mykjospeh has claimed to be an individual who runs a PR shop and has claimed to personally represent Strabala on this very talk page. Mykjoseph also heavily edited another article for a company for which an "associate" of his at his firm had previosuly done PR work. That article was subsequently delete at this AfD. It was the blatently promotional aspect of this Strabala article that caused me to scrutinize this article to begin with.

• Issue 1 -There is no mention of a legal dispute in this sentence, nor has there been for some time. It now reads: "Strabala left Gensler in 2010, reportedly having been 'let go' by the firm." This is not an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG, especially in light of the fact that Marshall Strabala failed to make partner at his first firm, and was sued this month by both of the firm's at which he was formerly an employee. Further, it was Mykjospeh who first suggested the that's Shanghai source in a post here on this talk page. (Mykjospeh has admitted to making all of the contributions from 216.80.92.229.) The source was also discussed in a CNN Asia blog post. The author (and photographers) appear to have undertaken quite a lengthy interview and have significant access to Strabala. And Strabala listed the article on his Flickr profile (and a link to this WP article, too) until recently. The "let go" phrase is a direct quote from the source.

• Issue 2 -This is not a resume. WP:EMBED clearly states a preference for prose vs. lists. I did not delete reference to the buildings. I moved those mentions into the text of the article and added clarifications (based on the sources) of Strabala's roles in the buildings.

• Issue 3 -The buildings are already listed in the prose. Listing them in the infobox leads to the impression that Strabala designed these buildings by himself.

• Issue 4 -The language Mykjoseph had placed in the article was promotional and inaccurate. Marshall Strabala was part of a team that designed these buildings. I reworked the lead to accurately reflect his role.

• Issue 5 -As I previously noted on this talk page, WP:NPF (a WP policy) states: "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability..." There is no reason to include Strabala's residences since it is not relevant to his notability.

• Issue 6 -I would love some (non-promotional) version of the LEED language to go back in. I had originally tagged it. There are several different types of LEED AP accreditation (including for Homes, Neighborhood Development, and Interior Design), some far more relevant to this architect's work than others. And Strabala does not appear in the LEED accreditation professional directory, so without an RS indicating which accreditation he has, we can only speculate.

• Issue 7-His profile at his firm's website is probably fine per WP:ELOFFICIAL. (His Linkedin profile is already an official EL, and his firm's website is a link off of that profile anyway, so it might not meet the requirements for multiple official ELs, but I would not object.) However, a general link to his firm's website's home page fails WP:ELNO #19. And it is Mykjoseph who continues to represent that the profile is not Strabala's official site. If not, even the profile fails WP:ELNO 1.

• Issue 8 -The section discussing the lawsuits against Strabala is neutral and clearly notes that the companies have made allegations. Adding anything about frivolous lawsuits, or more bizarrely, the presumption of innocence, would introduce POV (or imply Strabala had been arrested).

• Issue 9 -The article is currently titled "Marshall Strabala", which is apparently what Mykjospeh wants. I am fine with this per WP:UCN (though Strabala himself on his website and in press releases uses "J. Marshall Strabala").

• Issue 10 -As I mentioned before on this talk page, per WP:UCN, and the relevant examples there (Bill Clinton, H. H. Asquith, Snoop Dogg, and Hulk Hogan), the person's full name should appear in bold in the lead, though the most commonly used name serves as the article title. There seems little doubt that Strabala's full name is "Jay Marshall Strabala". In various places "Marshall Strabala", "J. Marshall Strabala", and "Jay Marshall Strabala" are used by RSs (and press releases).

Novaseminary (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue 1

To further comment on Novaseminary's position on this issue. First, the fact that there have been two lawsuits, in my opinion, is not a negative. If these suits are proven against the architect, yes, that's a negative. The fact that their have been two obviously coordinated lawsuits (filed within 24 hours of each other) for comparable reasons can mean as little as these archictectural firms -- which are no doubt fierce competitors for the same multi-million dollar projects in Asia as the architect's firm -- have extra time on their hands and US$350 to file a civil suit (see filing information and it shows the cost to file a suit is about that amount). Secondly, the fact that the architect did not make partner is not a "blight" as NovaSeminary would portray it, on this person's character. As Adrian Smith had spoken in the story, there were a number of people who did not make partner at S-O-M, to Smith's surprise. Novaseminary, attempts to portray everything in the harshest light possible about this person. As proof, Novaseminary has personally added every one of the negative elements about this architect in the past two months.) So, that is why I believe the "let go" statement, still stands as as rare negative portrayal on this page that, notably, is not covered by mainstream media, as WP RED FLAG says should cover such info to have it presented here. "That's Shanghai" is definitely NOT mainstream or respected media, by any definition (it doesn't even have a confirmed circulation figure), and is the only source that NovaSeminary has cited for this information. If NovaSeminary wants to include it so badly, why can't he find another source that confirms the "let go" info? He can't, that's why -- and this info ("let go") may very well not be true. Is that the kind of info that WP wants to cover? And, no Novaseminary, I don't own this article, like you evidently do - based on your constant major and condescending edits without any input at all. And, no, I won't step back from this DR effort, with your little offering today. It this effort is not successful with RFC, I will take all issues back to Mediation, (they will have been to Mediation and Rfc, and back, so that shows my considerable effort in this process) with or without your Approval. The Mediators can make a decision without your agreement if need be. [User:Mykjoseph|Mykjoseph]] (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Mykjoseph (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue 4 - Comment: As credited here, this architect led team on Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet and other buildings. This is just as multiple architects including Adrian Smith for the Burj Khalifa -- ALL who have their buildings mentioned in their Infoboxes -- have been credited. And this was despite Smith not being the only architect on Burj Khalifa, as shown from this article. Again, further evidence of NovaSeminary treating this architect as different than all other architects on WP.Mykjoseph (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the "let go" language is not exceptional and does not come under WP:REDFLAG, especially in light of subsequent events. Furthermore, the language notes that it was "reported", it sourced to a piece which was based on a substantial interview with Strabala, and which itself was covered by another media outlet. Mykjoseph himself suggested the source on this very talk page, and Marshall Strabala himself previously linked to the article on what purports to be his Flickr profile. The link was only removed after the source was used to support this sentence.

Despite all of that, I would agree to removing that part of the sentence (pending additional confirmation) if Mykjoseph is willing to drop the rest of his issues and move on promising to comply with WP:COI's suggestions when editing on behalf of current or former clients or family members or the like. I think having been "let go" by an employer pales in comparison to having been sued by that employer (and another), so I'm no longer worried about this article being a whitewash puff piece, so long as Mykjoseph relinquishes ownership of it.

Novaseminary (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The sheer fact you view two totally unproven and related corporate lawsuits as supposed strong material for this page, is evidence enough for me that your thinking is totally out-of-whack with reality. Mykjoseph (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I view the lawsuits, at this point, as evidence of nothing more than the fact that Gensler and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill are displeased in some way for some reason, rightly or wrongly, with Marshall Strabala. The lawsuits themselves, even if every word in them is a lie, seem like pretty strong evidence of that. And I only care about the lawsuits because they were covered in multiple RSs. I don't really care about Strabala, his former firms, the buildings in question, or where Strabala likes to fish. My care here is to keep WP neutral and not allow it to be used for promotion. And I agree with one of your statements above. You have gone to considerable efforts; I just wish they hadn't been to add promotional material about a former client of yours. Novaseminary (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue 1 - Resolved - I removed all of the language that offended Mykjoseph. I still think it was fine, but did so to streamline this RfC (a little, at least), to show good faith, and because I don't think it ultimately matters much. Obviously, if other editors feel more strongly that it should be in, we will need to revisit this. Novaseminary (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Issues 7 & 9 Resolved? - I reinserted the link to Strabala's firm profile. I never had a problem with this, just linking to his firm's homepage or calling the profile "2DEFINE website" or similar. Also, the article is currently titled "Marshall Strabala". I am fine with that. I merely suggested in an earlier talk that we might want to move ot to "J. Marshall Strabala" since that is what Strabala uses on his own website (see his profile just discussed) and in past press releases. This does not affect the issue in 10. But, can we consider these two issues resolved, too? Novaseminary (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I will proceed with ongoing DR of my remaining issues, if the RfC doesn't settle things.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching but not commenting. Hoping that you are able to get other folks involved or possibly that bringing the process is more open would be an impetus. I know Novaseminary well and, 30,000' view, they have been doing some not-nice things here, possibly better in the last few days. My personal guess is that Mykjoseph has some potential wp:coi considerations that must be kept at bay. Maybe a balance can emerge. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, I am ready to proceed with additional DR actions. If you have not changed your position on my remaining issues, I will proceed.Mykjoseph (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly do what you would like. However, I would consider reposting your RfC and in doing so refining your RfC to a few suggestions that you would prefer to have implemented on the article and then give the reason why relying on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I think what you initially posted had very little chance of ever attracting comment because it was very long, rambling, and at times more focused on me then on the article. You might want to take a look at the other pending RfCs on the Biography RfC Board. I would also encourage you to work toward creating consensus, not "winning" DR. I tried to above, and it is the way things operate here at WP. Also keep in mind that if others, especially admins, look deeply at these issues, your relationship to Strabala is likely to be an issue as are the ways this article was essentially used as an advertisement or resume for Strabala as I outlined in a section above, not in the ad hominem way I have been attacked above, but as explanation and illumination of the POV I think you have tried to introduce here whether you meant it to be promotional POV or not. Novaseminary (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mykjoseph, you should also probably let this RfC run its course before trying any other DR steps. For more, read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. Novaseminary (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

i think that mykjoseph and novaseminary should take a self-imposed break from this article for 10 days or so. let it rest. let others play with it, read it, understand it and make changes as necessary. then, and only then, come back to the talk page and discuss it again. enough edit warring. Soosim (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article in over 2 1/2 weeks anyway. I would be happy if other editors without a relationship to the subject of the article got involved. Novaseminary (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

outside comment

My opinion, not definitive judgements, of course, though for simplicity I worded them rather starkly. .

1. "let go" is a vague and negative term. In the absence of multiple reliable impartial sources, it should be "left Gensler" If he technically resigned, it should be "resigned" regardless of the circumstances that may have led to it. This is pretty basic BLP policy.
2. A list of major buildings is appropriate in architect articles, lists of works are normal practice is all articles on creative professionals, and are much clearer than prose. EMBED is not relevant in this context. The intention is not to use lists for arguments or explanations; individual items go in lists.
3. The most important work or works for which he was the principal designer should go in the infobox. It does not imply sole designer.
4. Similarly, it is assumed that most major projects have several cooperating designers. The person who led the team is the principal designer and had primary responsibility. We follow the wording of sources in assigning roles. Punctuation and sequence in a source is relevant, unless the listing is alphabetic.
5. Some degree of background is normal in biographies. I think the list of residences would be especially relevant for an architect as implying possible influences.
6. LEED goes in if there is a source, not otherwise. The sources are followed for how to describe it.
7. The website of a professional is often that of his firm. It should be listed and described properly. [http:... subject's website at firm] or [http:... website of subject's firm]
8. Lawsuits are mentioned if they are significant to the persons work and reliably reported. If they are withdrawn or settled ,great care is needed with the language. Withdrawal does not imply exoneration, and settlement does not imply guilt. "accused" and "charged" and similar are loaded words., "was sued regarding a dispute over ..." is more neutral
9. The only way of knowing a persons preference for name is normally the name they use on their own sources, or their proven statement. What is stated here about preferences unless proven via OTRS or sources is not relevant, but if this is not consequential my own opinion is it does not matter , if everyone involved is satisfied
10. The full name appears in bold in the lead, as appropriate unambiguous identifying information, but it can be in parenthesis if not the preferred name.

DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts in response to DGG's comments:

Issue 1 - Irrelevant. The language protested in the RfC was changed last month and is no longer in dispute.

Issue 2 - I'm not sure why WP:EMBED does not apply. The architects who are the subject of FAs do not have lists (as noted above). I would not oppose a list if placed in proper context (noting who did what on the building, etc.), but a list does not lend itself to that.

Issue 3 - I am fine adding to the info box buildings which are notable (i.e., have a WP article) and for which there are RSs to support the fact that Strabala is the "principal designer". That would leave out Burj Khalifa and other buildings for which Strabala was clearly not the principal designer. There have been lawsuits (as noted, with sources in the article) that dispute Strabala's role in several buildings, so the sourcing would need to be strong, not just regurgitations of facts Strabala gave a local reporter.

Issue 4 - I agree. Mykjoseph's language did not do this. The current language does.

Issue 5 - Background is appropriate, but gratuitous mentions of where Strabala apparently has residences fails WP:NPF. DGG, does NPF not apply here? If it does not, then I would note that the Chicago Tribune article mentions Strabala's address back in 1999, which is itself a notable building. That seemed to meet NPF, but Mykjoseph took it out. I find it interesting that on Strabala's firm website, he notes his firm's Chicago office address is in the same notable apartment building as the Tribune noted Strabala lived in back in 1999.

Issue 6 - I agree. But the LEED mention needs a good source that mentions which LEED it is. This is all the more true because, as I mentioned above, Strabala does not appear in the official LEED accreditation professional directory. Self-reporting this is not enough to establish it as a fact, or to establish its relevance (WP:UNDUE - it could have been for an area entirely unrelated to what he does now).

Issue 7 - Irrelevant. As noted above, this item is also note in dispute. This has not been an issue in several weeks.

Issue 8 - The version of the lawsuit discussion in place all month is neutral, does not say "charged" or anything like it, and clearly notes that the plaintiffs are alleging various things without implying the allegations are true or false. That fact is clearly supported and undoubtedly true (even if the plaintiffs are entirely wrong).

Issue 9 - Irrelevant (as DGG noted). Strabala himself has used "J. Marshall Strabala" and "Marshall Strabala". "Marshall Strabala" is fine.

Issue 10 - Agree that it currently appears appropriately. But this should not be in parenthesis even if Strabala prefers it that way, unless the parenthesis are needed to explain the context (maiden names, former names, etc.).

In sum, I really only stronglyt disagree with DGG on Issue 2. This is different than listing books, or plays, or films. But if limited to an appropriate, well-sourced and contextualized list (not as the prior promotional versions of the article had been), I have less of an objection. But if the point is to turn this into a resume, I object strongly. We also disagree on Issue 5. I don't think throw-away mentions of where he lives meet NPF, except for his residence in 1999 actually being a notable building itself and covered in the Chicago Tribune; but I don't think this issue is really a big deal.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Question on InfoBox

NovaSeminary, based on your comments above, if I interpret them correctly, (Your quote: "I am fine adding to the info box buildings which are notable (i.e., have a WP article) and for which there are RSs to support the fact that Strabala is the "principal designer") you agree that it is appropriate for Marshall Strabala's Infobox to include reference to his "Buildings", such as Hess Tower, Shanghai Tower and [[Houston Ballet.}} These are all buildings that his leading design role has been cited once or multiple times in media quoted as sources in the Marshall Strabala article. Because of the current PR (peer review) status of the article, it appears that my edits to the Infobox are not being procesesd, so I would ask that you add these buildings to the Infobox section, or, explain how I can do that myself with the current PR (peer review status in progress. Thank you. If this does not meet with your acceptance, I will take to Third Opinion and/or other DR steps. Mykjoseph (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are going on about. There are, as far as I can tell, no restrictions on editing this page, it is not undergoing any peer review or formal copy edit request by the Guild of Copy Editors and you are free to make any changes you like. You did, however, muck up the infobox template. See {{Infobox person}} for a list of accepted parameters; any other parameters (a parameter looks like "foo = X") are just ignored by the software. I've fixed the ones that you attempted to insert. --Danger (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Danger, you might be a bit more civil in your comments. Or, is that how you talk to everyone? I have added Shanghai Tower to the list of Strabala's notable buildings as shown by media references in this article. Gensler's lawsuit against the architect does not take away from Stabala's role. The lawsuit only shows that --in the context(s) that their suit is made -- the firm has questions about what he has said and his role. The suit shows that they disagree but in and of itself -- it proves NOTHING. Now, If there suit is successful, and specifically states in its conclusions that the architect did not lead the design, then of course Shanghai Tower can be deleted from the Infobox. But until then, it amounts to "original research" (which is not allowed on Wikipedia) to conclude that Strabala has not led design of the building. Besides that, the reader is already informed twice about the lawsuits on the page, so let's give them some credit for having brains and they can take that information along with the information on the page about the architect to draw their own conclusions. I will be happy to discuss further with anyone and to take this up the chain as needed. Mykjoseph (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mykjoseph, you misinterpreted Danger's comments. They ONLY said essentially that you are mistaken in thinking that you are restricted from editing it (your prior request implies that you have such a mis-understanding) and that you made technical/syntax errors in your prior attempted edit of the infobox. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize Mykjoseph. I should not have allowed the fact that I am swiftly losing patience with you affect the tone of my response. North8000 is correct about what my comment was intended to convey. Regarding your follow up comment, if you will please look at the article as it is now, your changes appear in the infobox. If for some reason you can't see them, let us know; it may be a problem with your browser or some sort of bug in the MediaWiki software. Danger (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Danger. I misunderstood the Infobox instructions as they are not very user friendly. Thanks again.Mykjoseph (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

Deleted reference to unproven and coordinated suits by two obviuos competitors of this architect. These suits, brought 4 months ago and of unknown current status, fit in the story, but until proven do not warrant "coloring" this person's 30 year career based on two allegations. Of course, if suits are ultimately proven and won by firms, that is a different story and would be proper. To do udderwise, wold be a little like putting referenece to lawsuit by retailer Tesco in the lead section of a story about a WalMart executive. It makes no sense as a main highlight and summar of a business professional. Like to see other thoughts from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaSpring (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just the allegations are widely covered in RSs. True or not is irrelevant and not our call. Novaseminary (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like DonnaSpring's point is not whether suits are true or false, which NovaSeminary assumes it is. It is how relevant is it for these two allegations to be the lead focus of story. NovaSemenary has decided on his own -- without waiting for any other editors' comments -- that it stays as is. Maybe this should be taken up with dispute resolution?Mykjoseph (talk)

Take a look at WP:BRD, but feel free to go to DR, though it seems unnecessary. As I have noted above, the lawsuits are not worthy of inclusion because I think the allegations are true. I have no idea whether the allegations are true. In fact, in some ways, it would be even more noteworthy if both of Strabala's former employers conspired to go after him. (Of course, I likewise have no idea that this is the case, either.) It is the fact of the lawsuits filing that got news coverage (his most significant coverage in RSs this year). And though it is nothing but OR right now, it looks like people can get the status of the lawsuits (or at least the legal documents) at various places online. Novaseminary (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to figure out that when two firms filed lawsuits within one day of each other -- as they did here -- they conspired together. Mykjoseph (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah but that is for another day, Strabala - might have a section about a vexatious lawsuit being dismissed - or he might take the high ground and just clean up the page and say nothing if the cases are tossed. The complaint's look a bit comical for example Gensler claims Mr. Strabala is a "threat to Gensler and the public"

Serioulsy Gensler's 50 item complaint includes the following - item 7 "Gensler is one of the leading global architecture, design, planning, and consulting firms in the world. Gensler employs 2,880 professionals in 38 offices around the world. Gensler serves its global clients in over 80 countries, across six continents" item 16 "On information and belief, Defendant’s architectural business competes with Gensler, and is intended by Defendant to compete with Gensler" item 28 "As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct as set forth above, Gensler has been, and continues to be, irreparably injured." item 48: "As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct as set forth above, Gensler has been, and continues to be, irreparably injured" and item 50 "Defendant’s continued portrayal of himself as the designer of certain architectural works designed by Gensler is continuing and will continue, constituting an ongoing threat to Gensler and the public. Unless Defendant is restrained and enjoined from engaging in the infringing conduct described above, Gensler likely will lose future projects and profits, and continue to suffer irreparable injury to its business reputation and goodwill." Oh BTW shouldn't Novaseminary include all 50 items of Gensler's complaint in the "Lead Sentence" after all they are part of the U.S. Court record not just some RSS feed [sarcasm here]? In all seriousness this is the problem with non certified complaints.

The following Gensler press release http://web.archive.org/web/20060511051956/http://www.gensler.com/news/2006/printable/pr_strabala.html makes it pretty clear Gensler hired Mr. Strabala to get "super tall" business and apparently that is what he did.

J. MARSHALL STRABALA JOINS GENSLER HOUSTON AS DIRECTOR OF DESIGN

HOUSTON, TX, April 7, 2006 — Gensler announced today that J. Marshall Strabala, AIA, LEED AP, has joined the firm as Director of Design for Gensler's South Central Region, which includes offices in Houston and Dallas.

"With an impressive record of design performance, Marshall brings both talent and leadership to our firm," said James E. Furr, FAIA, Gensler's South Central Regional Managing Principal. "Marshall's collaborative approach to project delivery also makes him an excellent fit for Gensler."

Mr. Strabala joins Gensler from Skidmore, Owings & Merrill in Chicago, where he was an Associate Partner and Lead Designer. He brings 25 years of architectural experience to his new role at Gensler. Some of the most notable examples of his work include projects at Canary Wharf in London for Morgan Stanley as well as the award-winning building for Credit Swiss First Boston at 15 The North Colonnade. A noted expert in the design of office buildings, convention centers, and performing arts venues, Strabala spent a year in Asia designing the iconic Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center. Strabala has lectured on architectural design to a wide range of audiences around the world and has completed projects in locations ranging from Mainland China, Korea, Europe, to the Middle East. He was the SOM Associate Partner in Charge of Design for several "supertall" mixed-use projects, including the 5-million-square-foot "The Burj Dubai" in the United Arab Emirates; at well over 160 stories, it will be the world's tallest building upon completion in 2008.

An award-winning architectural designer, Marshall Strabala is recipient of the prestigious Burnham Prize in 1996 and the AIA Chicago Chapter-Grand Projects Award, and he is an Affiliated Fellow of the American Academy in Rome. Numerous books and periodicals have featured his work, including Interiors, Context, Designers West, Metamorphosis, and Space. Mr. Strabala holds a Bachelor of Arts in Design from the University of California at Los Angeles and a Master of Architecture from Harvard University.

Gensler's South Central Region provides a comprehensive scope of architectural, design, planning, and consulting services. Led by Regional Managing Principal James E. Furr, FAIA, the region includes a 175-person office in Houston (David Calkins, AIA, Managing Director) and a 55-person office in Dallas (Judy Pesek, IIDA, Managing Director). Gensler is consistently listed as one of the largest architectural firms in the Houston and Dallas markets. Significant projects in the region include headquarter buildings for Anadarko Petroleum and Reliant Energy in Houston and interiors for Pier 1 and the Fidelity Westlake facility in Dallas.

Contact: Jan Lakin

212-668-4476

jan_lakin@gensler.com

So now Mr. Strabala is a "threat to Gensler and the public" had Mr. Strabala would damage Gensler if allowed to compete with them - I dont' think Gensler ever did a "super tall" without Marshall Strabala I am pretty sure that is why he was hired and that is what he did with the Shanghai tower. Oddly enough Gensler's own press release says he was the SOM Associate Partner in Charge of Design for several "supertall" mixed-use projects, including the 5-million-square-foot "The Burj Dubai" in the United Arab Emirates but now when he doesn't work for Gensler a 2,880 person company in June of 2006 now make the claim that once Mr. Strabala left it's employ "Gensler has been, and continues to be, irreparably injured." - yet it was okay for him to leave SOM and work for Gensler, shouldn't SOM sue Gensler under the same grounds [sarcasm here]? Once again this is the problem with non certified complaints, perhaps Gensler is just a "sore loser" or perhaps they have a "real claim" but until the Court proceedings pan out no one will know for sure.

DonnaSpring's comment is spot on is Marshall Strabala's accomplishments equal in weight to a lawsuit by former employers that allege the same violation (within one day in two different Courts) e.g 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) Note, there is still a litigation section present on the Wikipedia page that should have the actual text that Novaseminary keeps inserting into the leading sentence section. It doesn't matter if the suit has merit or no merit is true or not true (at this point no one knows) - but we do know they are allegations in a non certified complaint. One might think every major section should be added to the Lead sentence, seriously I think Novaseminary has an axe to grind let a litigation section be both descriptive and speak for itself. Ask your self this should Bill Clinton's biography on Wikipedia Bio page include "Sexual misconduct allegations" which has it's own distinct major section ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.223.67 (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest Novaseminary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP review the first paragraphs. The claim that "Just the allegations are widely covered in RSs. True or not is irrelevant and not our call" by Novaseminary is wacky - there is a later section that describes things in detail just as there is a "Sexual misconduct allegations" for Bill Clinton. I am so tired of "righteous editors" who have an agenda that I will seek to report Novaseminary on this item as a non-partial editor. I believe the court dockets speak for themselves - Strabala has moved to dismiss the cases.

Public sources:

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/76467/m-arthur-gensler-jr-associates-inc-v-jay-marshall-strabala-individually-and-doing-business-as-2define-architecture/summary (not very current 1:11-cv-03945)

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-york-southern-district-court/76456/skidmore-owings-merrill-llp-v-jay-marshall-strabala/summary (very current 1:11-cv-03906-MGC)

Government sources:

The definitive sources are from the U.S. District Courts (more current than the above) http://www.pacer.gov/ that link to https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ for 1:11-cv-03945 and https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/ for 1:11-cv-03906-MGC that are fully up to date.

It is interesting that Strabala doesn't make a public comment to the "RSS" feeds but instead merely quietly responds in court in a quiet legal fashion all without slandering the companies that filed against him. Oddly enough footnot [5] I believe from Ugolik, Kaitlin used the initial filing of an ex employer and a link to a pay site the provides the same information I cited above for 1:11-cv-03906-MGC, however in this citation there no analysis of why the case should be dismissed and what comes after if it isn't. The law is about procedures and paperwork clients that shoot off there mouth and make press releases are somewhat problamatic to defend if anyone wants Stabala's opinions you only have to start looking at his declarations in his dockets example https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/12719787815 (DECLARATION of Jay Marshall Strabala in Support re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution.) he appears to use pictures for educational purposes is this a crime SOM thinks and I imagine Strabala doesn't think it is a crime. The we look at https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/12719787799 (MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution.) and we see the classic legal doctrine get things dismissed for whatever reason before a complaint is seen to have merit and you move to a summary judgement stage in which all the cards are laid on the table.

An important point for Novaseminary I have to go back to the "Lead Sentence" Wikipedia text in question - it is weird the actions appear from public records to both be filed filed under "15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)" - source RFCEXPRESS and PACER.GOV - and somehow a leap is made in some RSS feeds that Strabala is claiming undue credit - I don't get it. Next both the complaints were "non-certified" this is a key fact because in a certified complaint it means that everything is claimed by Gensler or SOM to be "factual" and "true" and can be the basis of a counter suit, BUT in a non-certified complaint in the U.S. Civil system the filing party can make wild unsubstantiated assertions. Note a non-certified complaints are always slanderous and paint the defendant or taget as unfaltering as possible.

Like Mykjoseph indicated I believe and second the motion that the repeated actions of Novaseminary, by constantly reinserting the text "In June 2011, however, both of his former architectural firm employers sued Strabala claiming he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects.[4][5]" in the Lead Sentance, should be taken up with Wikipedia's dispute resolution after all this is a biography of a living person and subject to those standards as per

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

I don't get the actions of Novaseminary they seem disproportionate based on a few RSS feeds, no one is removing the fact there is a law suit (albeit a non-certified complaint) but the lawsuit has no bearing to the total sum e.g. the meaning and accomplishments of a person and his achievements, I think the term is "innocent until proven guilty", thus it should be put in the lead sentence. The lead sentence should be moved into the later section that already exists and which IMHO is too vague and should be renamed from "Employer Lawsuits" to "Litigation Concerning Attribution of Credit" which seems to be the crux of the matter. And the rest of the existing text can be dropped. Furthermore Strabala's response (and also Gensler's and SOM's) are a matter of documented court records.

The entire text of the old "Employeer Lawsuits" should both be true, balanced and concise IMHO it should read something like -

Litigation Concerning Attribution of Credit

In June 2011, Gensler and SOM two former architectural firm employers, sued Strabala claiming he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects. Strabala and his attorneys have filed motions to dismiss both claims in the U.S. District Courts of Illinois and New York.

The above is accurate and truthfull and keeps the RSS link references (people can read and get what they want) but also reference the pacer.gov electonic filing systems of the U.S. Courts and the dockets that show both Strabala's response(s) as well as SOM's and Gensler's as they exist to date.

I agree with all remarks from 108.75.223.67 above. NovaSeminary should very careful with editing of this page, which he has obviously not to this point. He is walking on more than just eggshells here in his usual role as the chief editor of this page -- as is Wikipedia.Mykjoseph (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)