Talk:Mark Altman (speaker)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Review by User:MIDNME[edit]

Untitled[edit]

This is a good article that could use some fleshing out.

Review by User:MIDNME[edit]

It is my belief that the creator of this article did not write the article for any personal gain, simply to increase the sum of knowledge about leadership speakers. Therefore, I removed the tag about conflict of interest. However; I do agree that the article needs some clean up, so I downgraded my rating to a C until the article is improved.

Since you are likely the writer based on your contributions we need someone other than you to remove the COI. In fact, removing it in a somewhat disingenuous way tends to demonstrate the COI. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I found some of the citations that were asked for on public record, mostly government or third-party organization records.

Herodotus1983 —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

Since there was no dissent about the references supplied, I deleted the references required template, and if there is no dissent I will delete the "Cleanup" and "Conflict of Interest Tags" Tomorrow Saturday 13, 2009. I will also be upgrading the grade of the article to a "C" level article. I am allowing one day for dissent. Herodotus1983 —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC).
I agree with the aforementioned deletion of the templates (all three), and the upgrade of the article. I'm glad that someone else was able to step in and edit the article, since my opinion was ruled invalid. MIDNME 10:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
All of you, please read about Wikipedia. We do not in essence make demands or ultimatums such as "if no dissent". We have no time frame. So, the COI needs to stay until the single purpose accounts demonstrate that they are not here as part of a campaign to promote this individual. As MIDNME's user contributions demonstrate a sock puppet/meat puppet relationship with Speakermatch's account and Herodotus1983's only edits are to this article (and all three have only made edits to this article, their user pages, or a single edit to another page that was for the purpose of making a link to this article) it is most likely all three are a single editor and are working to promote this individual. Further, per the note left in the article about sources, I have now removed many of them as failing as reliable sources. The most important aspect as related to this article as the sources should be PUBLISHED. Primary sources should rarely be used, and in this instance if the person is truly notable, then this information would be covered in interviews. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if it seems odd that the only contributions I've made are to this article, but I am new to wikipedia and this is the first article I've edited and wanted to see this through. I'm a Midshipman in the United States Navy so leadership theory is an interest to me. I stumbled across this article while doing some research and I found it interesting and thought I would take some time and edit. Frankly I'm insulted by your accusation. Also first hand sources are much more reliable than second hand sources, and even if your standard is interviews the majority of those sources are interviews and\or government or other third party records. I'm sure those are considered reliable in academic writing. MIDNME —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC).
Also I would like to know what your disagreement is with the PBS Interviews that were posted as sources. Your claim was that interviews are reliable and an interview on public broadcasting by a professor is not reliable?
If you would kindly take the time to read the blue linked items above, specifically what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources you may better understand Wikipedia and what we are doing here. First, Wikipedia is not an "academic writing" and as such, though primary sources are preferred in the academic world, we discourage much of their usage here, especially when they are not published. If they are not published, it makes it rather difficult for other editors to Verify (click here) the content. As to the YouTube issue, the problem is not with it being an interview or on PBS, it has to do with it being on YouTube where copyright violations are a dime a dozen, as this video looks like it could be. Unless the interview is on the official PBS channel at YouTube it was likely uploaded by the YouTube user without the express permission of the copyright owner, which is what YouTube tends to contain (at least regarding quality content that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable sources), thus we cannot link to copyright violations (in general see WP:YOUTUBE). So, feel free to add a citation of the interview (possibly you can find a transcript online), but do not link to the upload at YouTube (possible the PBS station has it online?). As to being insulted, sorry but all the actions by the editors adding content to this article are doing so in what appears to be a concerted effort to promote the individual. The odds of a new editor stumbling across this new article within an hour of its creation strains all credibility. If I am wrong, I apologize, but you have said you use two accounts, which ones? Aboutmovies (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Like I said I don't use two accounts. I have two accounts, but I forgot the username and password to the first account so I made a new account. I made the first one right as school started this last year and I had some special Naval Training so I was in a high stress enviroment with little time to do anything for fun (Even though it was a little different I'm sure you can sympathize with your law school experience) so it was roughly two months before I even looked on wikipedia again let alone signed in. So when I tried what I thought was my account name it didn't work. I tried all of the variations I use but I couldn't get any of them to work. So to answer your question I have no idea what my other username and password are. I'll read those links you sent so I can do this a little better about this. I appreciate your help on improving my editing, and am sorry if this "strains all credibility" but it is the truth. MIDNME —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
Then explain your edit that started this section. Unless you know the other editor, how could you "[believe] that the creator of this article did not write the article for any personal gain, simply to increase the sum of knowledge about leadership speakers"? Aboutmovies (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Than also explain why your deleted version (see it here) from your user space looks a lot like the early versions of this article (see here) including what appears to be an identical lead, and the exact same Headers (the Education section is also almost identical)? Aboutmovies (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
To answer your first question I read the article and it didn't seem to be written for personal gain, and it does "increase the sum of knowledge about leadership speakers." I had read some of the Wikipedia articles on editing after I saw the COI tag and then responded that I didn't think it had any Conflict of Interest from how I read it. Also the subpage was my attempt at starting the article for Mr. Altman since I thought he needed one after reading his book. The education section was almost identical I'm sure because I used the information found on his book plus some Googling of Mr. Altman. I'm sure that the writer did the same thing. I thought that those headers were the only ones that made logical sense and followed what I had seen on some other articles (I did do some research on what other articles looked like before starting this one) I would imagine that that is also what the other authors/editors did. I understand that you could find this suspicious though so I don't blame you. Would it help if I started working on other articles? MIDNME —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
That doesn't explain why the intro paragraph (the WP:LEAD) was almost exactly the same too. Second, I have come across about 10 duplicate articles on Wikipedia over the years, and none of those with sections had the exact same sections down to the exact same titles/capitalization, the use of level 2 and level 3 in the headers, or the exact same order. As in, never have I seen even one of those three aspects the same between two articles on the same topic, let alone all three (for each aspect the odds go up exponentially that they would exist identically). Let alone the nearly identical lead, down to comma usage. Everyone writes differently, you would expect at least a some significant selection differences on something. I mean, even the infobox copies the same "200px" error for trying to impose a image size without the proper field name. Copying errors is how copyright holders try to catch copyright infringers, see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service and the phony entries. And further, both your deleted copy and the early copy of this article use <br/> after each header, again something you rarely find in Wikipedia articles. All of this shows knowledge. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)