Talk:Brett Salisbury

Previously deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury, and nothing really better to demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Revamp

as per the consensus at the deletion discussion, i am continuing the conversation regarding the article and content here. personally, i believe the next step should be to post the alternative article written by Esprqii under the heading "Brett Salisbury" (as this seems to be the most common form of his name), and continue the conversation on that articles talk page. this article could be rewritten from a NPOV, but seeing as Esprqii already put in the work, lets just use that one and nominate this one for speedy deletion. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

in the meantime i have gone ahead and removed all references to "the transform diet", awaiting other users input. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

transform diet

since it appears this is going to become a new version of this article, i have gone ahead and removed all mention of "the transform diet" as per my reasoning in the deletion discussion which i will repost here: "just wanted to reiterate that i believe the "transform diet" should be entirely removed from the article. the press release used as a reference for the "january's #6 best seller" claim is a user generated repost of an email received from the website selling the authors book. iuniverse.com is a website for self publishing and selling books, and pr.com is a website for business promotion, primarily via user generated "press releases". the pr.com reference is not a WP:RS, nor does an email received from a self publishing website indicate WP:NOTE." cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Note the proceeding commentary was copied from the deletion discussion in response to my carbon copy comment on that page. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment While the Transform Diet website is pretty self-serving and totally unreliable, it seems pretty clear that Salisbury did write a real book. I think it's OK to use the website as a reference for that as it establishes his current status. --Esprqii (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

if his book was published by a reputable publisher and had an ISBN number, i would agree with you. but seeing as brett is not an "established expert" in the field of dieting, his self-published book fails the notability guidelines and appears to be promotional in nature. in the words of a wiki policy, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books ... are largely not acceptable." now if there was a third party reliable source which discussed brett's self-published book, things might be different. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

further reading about wikipedia policy on the notability of books. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that is meant to apply to the notability of books themselves. I agree that the book itself is not notable and therefore is not worthy of its own Wikipedia article. However, in terms of Salisbury's article, it seems to me that it is worth mentioning what he is doing now. If the only thing he had ever done is self-publish some diet and exercise books, then he would not be notable. The general consensus here seems to be that if he is notable, it is due to his college football career, and we have some reliable sources to establish that. If we want to reword it to say something like, "Since his retirement from football, Salisbury has self-published a book about diet and nutrition," cite his website, and leave it at that, that's fine with me. I just think it's useful to include what he is doing now in the article. But this is all stuff we can work on once this AfD closes, if the article is kept/moved. --Esprqii (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

yes you are correct, those policies to apply more directly to articles regarding books themselves; i was using them as examples of wiki policy regarding books in general. also, as you note yourself, the website for the book is pretty self-serving, which is directly addressed in WP:SELFPUB. and i would like to correct myself that, as the anon editor pointed out, the book does indeed have an ISBN; i didn't see it when viewing the amazon page for the book previously. moving on, i must say my opposition to the inclusion of the book in the biography stems from the apparent promotional aspect of the original inclusion. an article about the transform diet was previously created and subsequently deleted as advertising. as was an aritcle on brett himself, it would appear this bio was created under the new title with "jon" included in an effort to avoid speedy deletion under db-g4 as a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. the semi-notable Brett_Jon_Salisbury biography was then recently created in which promotion of the book featured prominently. any way, as WP:BLP states, self-published sources my be used as (non-primary) references about the author of the self-published work. seeing that as it is, it may very well be appropriate to mention brett's current occupation as an author/nutritionist using the transform diet website as a reference. but i would ask that actual references to the book be avoided; if the book is not notable enough to warrant an article about itself, i don't see why direct mention of it should be included in brett's biography. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Meanwhile, I share your frustration at what other people are trying to use Wikipedia for, and I appreciate your effort in keeping a cool head and seeing past the cruft to what will be a good addition to Wikipedia. --Esprqii (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

book link

i changed the link to the transform diet website and instead used the fore word reviews article to establish the same information. article actually specifically states the information it is supporting where as transform diet website did not. neither website is a WP:RS, but the fore word reveiws article is less self serving than author's website and doesn't have a history of being spammed around wikipedia. if there are any objections please discuss here. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems kosher to me. The rules on using self-published sources as references are pretty clear: don't!. It might be acceptable as an external link/see also, but I don't know the relevant policy on those. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

from WP:EL, more specifically WP:ELBLP

External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.

from WP:BLP, more specifically WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is not unduly self-serving

a website with the primary goal of selling the subject's book seems pretty self-serving. (if you care) for more indepth reasoning on my removal of the website please see this discussion with the aritcle author on my talk page. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

removing all model/writing refs

have some more info about thetransformdiet.com. website was created around the same time the original author in this sockpuppet case made his first two articles.

the two physical addresses are about five hours apart according to google maps. looks like mr. clayton opened the website on september 30th, during the course of the recent deletion discussion; wouldn't surprise me if he also managed the transform diet website as well. five days later this comment was made by the IP editor on that deletion page:

As for the author not being a model? LOL really? Have you read GQ lately? You might want to try that. He is with Elite in Atlanta call them. They will confirm it. He is also being listed as the top 25 models ever by Vogue. Top25malemodelsever.com ... Annoying people. Just get this done and move on. The debate is over!! 65.160.210.32 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)City People

sure i could dig up more irregularities if i looked harder. i'm removing all references to mr.salisbury's modeling and writing career with this information in mind; anything less would be a victory for that editors attempts at abusing wikipedia. WookieInHeat (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we've been very patient with the article creator and given them more good faith than perhaps they deserve. The top 10 diet books website (which is no longer used in the article) was similarly fraudulent to your examples above. Since neither the diet book nor modelling career have been sourced to a reliable source (and to my mind, radio interviews on minor programs don't count as such), it's perfectly legit to remove them until such sources are found. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This was found not be a "sockpuppet case" REMOVE. It's bad publicity for wikipedia and WookieInHeat makes no correlation to the relationship of both websites built or started over 2 years apart in two different states with two differnet people on 2 seperate servers.

1. Different address. 2. Different Name all together. 3. Two different States 4. Different servers 5. Transform was started in 2008 6. 25 top models which has nothing to do with anything but measure models value was just recently put online. 7. Dismiss and remove, it's reckless material that any administrator will look at as what are the correlations? Nonsense.

WookieinHeat, what is your point? What is the correlation? that two website were bought through the same website. Most people use godaddy or web.com. Other than that what are you trying to prove? We are all getting tired of your continued proof that doesn't pan out. You were told NO this is not a case of sockpuppetry. Remove and take a close look at how many in correct changes wookieinheat has made the past 4 days. Over 40. Including the guys college in her last change. She wanted this person removed only to be told its a keep. She is bordering on harassment and an administrator needs to stop it immediately. I will not tolerate it any longer and she needs to move on. I am not an adminstrator and I will not correct anything but I will also not be shown a diagram of two different webs sources that have nothing to do with each other. WookieinHeat needs to be repremanded. She has turned over Esprqii 4 times in two days. Needs to stop. Please. Thank you. The rest below you will read was all addressed by Esprqii and had proven everything only again to be overturned by Wookie. Please look closely at each change. They are all reliable sources yet she calls them not. The largest newspaper in Nevada is The view. She called it "unreliable." She is Unbelievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk • contribs)

i am through conversing with this editor as per WP:SNOW. WookieInHeat (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Why would wookie in heat with her own admission use the WP:SNOW adding "I am through conversing with this editor as per WP:SNOW with edvidence against editor Wookie? The contributions that continue to change are done under Wookie In Heat's "supposed better judgement"? Yet she continues to overturn Wikipedia established editors suggestions and summary changes. It's obvious Wookie In Heat is using bad judgement and making poor decisions. I think she should be removed from editing again from this page. Again this is the not the first complaint against her. 72.132.160.159 (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Concerned IP Editor

Was there an actual request in there? All I'm seeing is a personal attack, which we don't allow here, per WP:NPA.

Sailsbystars (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wondering why your changes were removed AGAIN from Wookie? She seems to override any reliable and sourced/established change. That seems to be an attack on any IP editor including you Sailsbystars. Please explain her override. I don't see why a change was made on her behalf. Sounds like a personal vendetta against the notable person? Wookie corrects every reliable source to fit her agenda. Please make sense of that.

was the title of this new section purposely ironic? WookieInHeat (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018

Add info to "early life" Father, Richard Salisbury was a huge German man and a Gentle Giant who was the caretaker of the Escondido Water Treatment Plant where they lived. As cousins to Darla, Kurt, Sean, and Bret, myself Ronn Dufrene, and younger sisters Kimm and Christy. Would run around and play hide and go seek in and around the water plant. I remember one year Brett heard a faint sound of a cars horn playing out and getting weaker. BEEP BEEP BEEP, beep beep beep. As it turns out, a young woman had driven her car off the winding road above and into the trees. Had it not been for Aunt Shirleys belief in young Brett Jons story, the young woman may not have survived. Brett Jons' mother Shirley had two younger sisters Darlene and Andrea Cook. The daughters of Career Northrip Aviations Ellis Cook. I Ronn Dufrene, Born Ronald Ellis Norton. Am the proud Grandson and son to youngest daughter Andrea Cook.WP.3DBLDR (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC) WP.3DBLDR (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "I was there and know it to be true" is not a reliable source. Furthermore, the requested text is not written appropriately for an encyclopedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

References

His wife

Up to date info on his wife plZ 203.196.52.30 (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)