User talk:Semperfly
Semperfly, you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi Semperfly! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
Glenmere accusations
How dare you accuse anyone at Glenmere Resort of changing Jay Westerveld;s Wiki page. You better be able to back that up................................ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herr Peter Klein (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Funny
The Glenmere resort IP address matches up with open entries to the [Jay Westervelt] page.
Backup is well-supported.
Please go ahead and take action Alan. It is a shame to see you implode with your bankrupt resort. Maybe another Miami paper can use another underbred "Society Editor"
Very funny
You really are a delusion dope, but very predictable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Stenberg (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Hello, just to let you know I've now locked the page you mentioned on ClueBot's talk page. I had a quick look at the history and I was quite shocked to see the amount of vandalism it had come under. I've locked it for a week, hopefully that's long enough for them to discover something else to occupy their time with. If it's not, then please request that the page is locked again by filing a report at WP:RFPP, if the user continues vandalising the encyclopedia please file a report at WP:AIV--5 albert square (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- And to add to that, Turtle Bog has now been blocked indefinitely. If you come across similar edits again it is likely that he is abusing multiple accounts, known on here as being a sockpuppet. If that happens, I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the accuser and file a report at WP:SPI for one of them to investigate. Any questions, feel free to ask :)--5 albert square (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk:Jay Westerveld. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikiwashed
Jay,
You have been Wiki-washed! (Yes anybody can coin stupid catch phrases or even "Neologisms")
It looks like Wikipedia has filtered out the fluff and gotten down to the factual base of your page:
"3) he is otherwise of very marginal biographical notability, if any at all"
ce: per source, not "virtually-last" or much similar.)
rm "successful" — seems unsupported by coverage of temporary stoppage; clarify re shrimp discovery per source; ce lead per prose and reliable sources)
(→External links: rm section: none of the WP:EL are actually about Westerveld; 2 of 3 have no mention of the subject and seek donations for causes associated with the subject
(→Biologist: rename section to "Career" — more apt description to cover activism, neologism, etc.)
(→Veterans' affairs: rm apparently insignificant. i'm not finding any actual coverage of this activity.)
(→Snowboarding: rm all: WP:BLPSPS-based section full of unsourced statements. The source itself, run by Westervelds, waxes hagiographic. Zero third party coverage and apparently merits no WP:WEIGHT
(rm snowboarder: http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090801/NEWS/908010329/-1/news56 sources wikipedia. snowboarding only in passing. it has zero significance as demonstrated by WP:RS, and is peripheral to claims of note)
I think he has credible claims to importance; but I agree that the sources are borderline leaning towards lacking for supporting notability, so can clearly see the logic of a merge proposal. --- Barek
I've proposed merger at Talk:Greenwashing#Merger proposal for the reasons above. In short, the only topic covered by multiple reliable sources in regards to this subject coincide with Greenwashing. Local news where the Westerveld is not the actual topic of coverage should be discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 23:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
There were numerous references citing the subjects many presentations on biological topics. Westerveld is clearly credited with discovering entire new populations of rare animals, many of which are of greater scientific import than one neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperfly (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC) There are almost no third party reliable sources which discuss his "discoveries." The sources that do mention this are careful to state the claims are unconfirmed. Furthermore, the subject is not covered for having been a former pro snowboarder. Let's be clear: that term was used only once, in passing, in local news covering environmental issues. The one article you've replaced is one I removed for having used Wikipedia as a source. Did you even read the article? I'm removing it based on the source alone, but equally applicable might be WP:FART: the fact is insignificant according to reliable coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The "numerous references" you refer to probably included the self-publications by related parties promoting a future event, or links to pirated and copyrighted newscasts on youtube, which I removed. Such press announcements regarding upcoming events cannot be used to claim 1) that the event even actually occurred, nor 2) any significance of the accomplishment, since the host of presentations necessarily has an interest in puffing and promoting the presentation. JFHJr (㊟) 15:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think there are/were sources that support notability beyond the neologism, then bring them here. The sources you're referring to must be in the edit history. Be sure to see edit summaries for reasons for removal. You seem to have ignored the fact that one was removed because it was at least partially sourced to Wikipedia. Talking about other editors is off the mark, especially when you yourself are a single-purpose account just like the others. Produce the references here and stop talking about others' behavior, or retract your comment
ce: per source, the NYSDE didn't ever say it was "clear" that construction was "endangering" anything. they ordered a halt over improper environmental permits
(ce intro (rm unsupported details); rm unsourced passages: 1970s career, foundations/nonprofits (none seems significant enough to appear in third party coverage); rm unsourced place of birth, birth date; make Westervel_d_ uniform) (undo)