Talk:Mark Ghuneim

DissidentAggressor COI - Retaliating for Edits from a Completely Unrelated Page that Was Ultimately Deleted from WP

Note that a user attempted to edit this page in retaliation after I flagged a completely separate and unrelated page (Amanda Rosenberg) that has since been deleted (due to violations of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc.) I reverted those edits. Wintertanager (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted the edits again by same editor... Would love to resolve issues in Talk page. Have no COI - totally unwarranted allegation - however most certainly spent a lot of time working on this page, researching and resourcing, would appreciate the same care and consideration placed in edits to the page. Please discuss, am open and judicial to constructive discourse. Wintertanager (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User The Dissident Aggressor is on what appears to be a vendetta after my edits of a totally unrelated page. This is very concerning to me - runs absolutely contrary to the goals and ethics of wikipedia. That page (Amanda Rosenberg) was ultimately removed due to egregious NPOV violations and - much to my amazement - was immediately moved to a site called 'NoStandardsPedia' - Amanda Rosenberg, complete with section on her extensive views on "race relations"! making an absolute mockery of the process we have here. Wintertanager (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Due to that experience I request other perspectives on this page. I've put a lot of effort into it - I don't craft articles capriciously and work hard to follow the standards of WP. If I have done something in error, let me know in the spirit of this community, not as a bully. Makes me lose interest in creating pages at all Wintertanager (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This thing reads like a puff PR piece

My attempts to transform this into something remotely encyclopedic have been repeatedly reverted by someone who seems to only edit similar articles on tech executives. (paid editor? PR?)

In addition to the overall tone of this article, the off-topic info on companies this guy worked for should be stripped out. For example listing Wiredset's clients here is absurd. Similarly absurd is name-dropping "artists he worked with" at Sony.

The Dissident Aggressor 00:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to modify aspects of the article if it reads promotional; that is most certainly not the intention. The things you point out are facts. Ghuenim did, in fact, work with those artists. It isn't promotional, it is true. I am not paid by anyone; you clearly have an agenda that is distorting your perception. Would be more than happy, again, to work with a Wikipedia editor less vitriolic to modify any aspect of this page that doesn't meet NPOV. Wintertanager (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

To continue, it isn't 'name-dropping' to list artists Ghuneim has worked with; it is one of the criteria which qualifies him as of public interest. This is a figure that has played an important role in both the digital era of the music industry and a tech pioneer in the evolution of second-screen behaviors. Wintertanager (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, that you refer to Mark Ghuneim as 'this guy' shows that you really aren't interested at all in this subject. It shows instead that you have an alternate agenda. Ghuneim is someone who a lot of tech people (and publications) have a ton of interest in, which absolutely qualifies for inclusion on WP and is of public interest to read about and understand. Each company I have included is to show the relationship between the next. Ghuneim is a music industry veteran - hence the Sony Music stuff is important - that created Wiredset, which led to Trendrr, which led to Curatorr which was acquired by Twitter with a lot of public interest. I am just telling the story, as briefly as possible, of who someone of public interest is. AND I'm willing to change anything if it isn't done to WP standards. However, I'm not going to do so when the person flagging the page has a past history I played a role in, such that his/her actions could be construed as retaliatory and less than genuine. Don't appreciate it one bit. Wintertanager (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's time you moved on from any perceived retaliation. AFDs come and go. In fact, I changed my position on that AFD and supported deletion which was the same position as yours.

Beyond that, please stop removing the maintenance tags on the article until consensus says they are addressed or were never an issue. Let's get some additional input here before you unilaterally decide the tone of your edits isn't an issue. I have asked for additional eyes on the issue at WP:NPOVN. The Dissident Aggressor 22:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I've also added an RFC tag to this section. The Dissident Aggressor 03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

DissidentAggressor, Very glad you have requested additional eyes - your request reads remarkably reasonable! - a stark contrast to your usual aggressive tone, so thank you! I also removed the unsubstantiated and totally false COI - another editor already commented on that at the page you request additional eyes - as well as the advert tag which I believe is incorrect. I removed the issue you flagged (list of artists from summary) as well as a few other minor tweaks, But otherwise believe article provides concise, well written info on this subject of public interest.Wintertanager (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added two weasel tags. @Wintertanager: remove as you deem correct. Jerodlycett (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jerodlycett, I appreciate the care you put into the citation clean-up and am working through the doc now to address the issues you identified. Re: weasel words - I (hopefully) cleaned up one weasel word flag; the other I would like to keep and want to explain why. The phrase in question is here:

In July 2013, Trendrr released a widely cited[weasel words] study that concluded Facebook had five times as much TV-related social activity as the total of all other social networks that Trendrr measured.[19][20]

My first impulse was to agree and pull out the 'widely cited', but the problem there is that this study was indeed widely cited and was essentially what put Trendrr on the map, leading to its eventually acquisition by Twitter. When I take it out it loses that relevance. The study appeared in the Guardian, AllThingsD, AdAge, etc. - making a splash in the industry because it turned conventional thought on its head; the assumption to that point had been that Twitter was the dominant leader in TV-related social activity. So I am by no means trying to pump this up, I'm just trying to show that this particular study was influential enough to essentially led to the larger adoption of the 2nd screen analytics technology. That said, if you after reading this still believe that the language qualifies as a weasel word, by all means add the tag back or just remove the 'widely cited' altogether, I won't disagree. Wintertanager (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's a fact, it's a fact. That's what matters here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The article definitely reads like a puff piece/ glorified CV from where I'm standing. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment summoned here by bot. I agree that the article is excessively promotional. Also, just in a skim, I noticed that a blog was utilized for a promotional sentence and I removed it. However, this RfC suffers from being too scatter-shot and not focused enough to be halpful in improving this article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed two tags related to 'reads like a resume' etc. added by an anonymous user. Considering the time and energy spent by myself and others on this page, user needs to log in to add said tags. The page has been reviewed by numerous editors; again as the author I am more than happy to address any perceived issues, but Ghuneim is a notable public figure, article is well sourced (and written, I would argue!), and if there is anything not of public interest or relevance, let's work together to identify and remove, as seems to be exactly what is happening. For my part I'm addressing improving sourcing, references, removing any peacock terms, etc. etc. as quickly as I have the time. Wintertanager (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed tags again after anonymous editor reverted. Requested more participation in discussion and yes, helps if you log in. Wintertanager (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Logging in is not a requirement for adding tags. Do not remove tags until the issues they highlight have been resolved. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of the tags has been disputed. Highlighted issues identified by various editors that have taken the time to go through the docuement have indeed been resolved. I think at this point in the article's life it is reasonable to request more information (specifics area, peacock terms, citations, etc. that warrant the tags) rather than just throwing them in there after a cursory sweep. As you can see I (appear to be the only one) actually trying to address the issues and fix them. I have alleged, accurately I believe, that some weighing in here are not familiar with the subject or his relevance to the public. Have included NY Times, Billboard Magazine, Wall Street Journal, etc. etc. etc. to substantiate the info included here, which is of public interest and not some random resume. So please, help me understand specifically where you perceive their to be issues and I will do the work to fix them. ThanksWintertanager (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Highlighted issues have clearly not been resolved. That's why this RFC is still open. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? If you look at the history of the edits, they have indeed been addressed. I have put a lot of work into it. What specifically remains? There were peacock terms identified. Those have been corrected. There were citations needed. Those have been added (NY Times, Billboard Magazine, Wall Street Journal, etc. etc. alot of very reputable sources). I have cut any sentence that seems like puffery I can find and am at the point where I don't want to cut into the bone of the article. This individual is of public interest; the references alone prove that, and if you were genuinely interested in this topic you would know that. What remains is a pithy account of Ghuneim's relevance, focusing primarily on Twitter's acquisition of Curator with context provided explaining how that came to be. So if you want me to stop removing these tags, all I'm asking is you add specificity. What remains? What specific sentences do you object to? If those objections meet Wikipedia's criteria, I will modify them. Work with me and I will reciprocate - you have someone willing to dig in and resolve whatever issues exist, just let me know what they are! Wintertanager (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted tags again and await response on above. Crickets. Some discourse, specificity would be awesome. I think I'm being pretty polite; wish you could extend me the same courtesy...Wintertanager (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at the very start of this RFC: "In addition to the overall tone of this article, the off-topic info on companies this guy worked for should be stripped out. For example listing Wiredset's clients here is absurd. Similarly absurd is name-dropping "artists he worked with" at Sony." Those issues have not been addressed, and those are only specific examples given to open the conversation. Please stop removing templates, it is disruptive. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The very start of this RFC was made by a very aggressive editor in retaliation for a completely separate page he had created (that was removed from Wikipedia altogether), all detailed above. That editor (thankfully) requested additional perspectives, and a number of editors have weighed in with specific edit suggestions to the page - all of which have since been made at considerable effort. As to listing artists that Ghuneim worked with - that is relevant information cited in many of the reputable sources supporting this document, certainly of public interest and value to someone wanting to learn about his relevance. Similarly, the brief list of Wiredset clients gives context to the types of companies that Wiredset worked with: i.e., television networks, significant to understanding the second-screen data analysis that proved to be of such interest to Twitter when they acquired Trendrr. I understand that you think this is just a random CV; it isn't. If you are interested in tech, business, etc., this is a relevant figure that many are interested in. If you can cite specific issues with the page as other editors have, more thoughtfully, etc. If another editor reviews the page (who hopefully is familiar with the topic) and suggests those things be removed, then I will do so cheerfully, as long as they can provide a good reason why within the Wikipedia guidelines. Wintertanager (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you knock this "retaliation" nonsense off please? Nobody is retaliating against you. If you read the discussion both above and below, I agreed with you on the AFD I'm supposed to be retaliating against you for. You're making shit up.

As far as the tags, the IP is right. You only want to see articles about tech execs that look like they were written by fanbois or their PR agents. You certainly give the appearance of having a COI and these articles look like puff pieces. The Dissident Aggressor 22:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, after you added a section about 'Race Relations' that was deleted by me and observed that other editors were agreeing with my edits, you also went along with the RFD for the Amanda Rosenberg page because you felt that Wikipedia's BLP rules were too stringent. This was after you vehemently went after and reverted every edit I made, sent warnings to my page, etc. etc. If that qualifies as agreeing with me and not retaliating, then not sure what to say. And don't use profanity I don't appreciate it.Wintertanager (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Fact: every tangible issue identified in this page by others has been addressed by either myself or someone else. Fact: I have encouraged any responsible editor to identify any issues whatsoever with any pages I've written, and pledged to work myself to fix them. Fact: I can write pages about whatever I like, providing they adhere to Wikipedia's rules. Your behavior towards me is much like your name - aggressive. You lose foul language, you berate, insult, place warnings on my page, on and on and on. I don't like it or appreciate it. Ever since I removed outrageous content you added on a since-deleted page, you have been all over pages I have worked on and edited. I don't think that is okay and would love to know what to do about it beyond simply complaining here.Wintertanager (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to censor my language. If I want to use foul language, I sure-as-shit will, l but I will remain WP:Civil in doing so. The Dissident Aggressor 04:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe we have consensus here about these tags. Coretheapple says it's promotional, I do, 79.97.226.247 does. Does anyone other Wintertanager feel that these tags are not appropriate? The Dissident Aggressor 15:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No COI yet the picture belongs to Wintertanager

Wintertanager, you say that you have no conflict of interest (above) yet the headshot used in the article and uploaded by you is your own work. At least one of those statements is false. Which one(s)? The Dissident Aggressor 00:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The photo is not my own; I uploaded it from the internet; it has since been deleted due to licensing concerns. Again, no COI. Wintertanager (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that the photo has been deleted - I tagged it for deletion once I found the blatant copyright violation.

1. Why did you claim it as your own when you uploaded it?
2. Why should anyone believe you regarding not having a WP:COI after you've already been caught lying about owning the photo?

The Dissident Aggressor 22:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer. In the mean time, restoring the tag. The Dissident Aggressor 16:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer your questions, in order, it was likely due to inexperience. However in all honesty I don't know the reasons, because when I tried to research the photo I could not find a record of it, given that you had deleted it from Wikicommons. In any case, I made a mistake, I owned up to it, and that should be that. The second question doesn't dignify a response. It is indicative of your general lack of decorum when communicating to others within Wikipedia.

I am removing the COI tag based on the fact that

1. I have no COI and am happy and eager to address any issues in this article;

2. the grounds you state for COI are not sufficient (which I document below)

3. I maintain my accusation that you are doing all this not because you care about the subject of this page, but because you wish to retailiate against me for a stance I took on another, unrelated page (documented above). Your claim that you agreed with my request to delete is absurd considering the hostile tactics you took in reverting edits for a page that was eventually deleted altogether and moved to a site called 'NoWikiStandards' or something. It really was a collosal waste of my time. Wintertanager (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The following is an editor's response to DissidentAggressor's justification for COI (I include to document because he has threatened me on my own page from removing these tags). The post response is archived here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Attention_requested_on_Mark_Ghuneim:

Having taken a picture of someone doesn't indicate a COI. File:Kiki Sanford at SkeptiCal.jpg was taken by Susan Gerbic, but Susan doesn't have any COI with editing her article. @Wintertanager: made a bad judgement in uploading the picture, that's it.

The two diffs you pointed out were of the editor reverting your tagging (and in the second, removal of section headings) of the article. They had already basically accused you of harassment on the talk page. A month before. You never replied. They pointed you to the talk page

after the first tagging, where they were attempting to discuss the matter. You didn't discuss it.

Your claim that you are trying to improve the encyclopedic value of the article seem weak to me, though it could just be that the only edits I'm aware of are you tagging, which is just tagging.

I'll take a look at the article, but right now you don't have a halo exactly. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, I am removing this tag because The Dissident Aggressor himself has been totally inconsistent in their application: he removed with the justification of 'Screw It' (not sure what that means) only to put them up again later.Wintertanager (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

All I can say about your delusions of persecution is just because folks like me agree with you, doesn't mean we're not all consipring against you. The Dissident Aggressor 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone {{dead link}}

I've been adding archives where I find the dead links, but need to sleep. Can someone tag the dead links? (Within the ref tag). Don't just remove the link. Include dead servers, 404s, blanked pages, and redirects to a home page. I'll find the correct archives tomorrow. Jerodlycett (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

surveillance in public spaces

It's clear he opposes surveillance in public places. The article stated that he addressed surveillance in public spaces. There's a big leap between opposing something and addressing a universally accepted problem. In this case it's clearly the former. He can do his advocacy on his web properties, this is an encyclopedia.

In addition, as it was written, that sentence was a verbatim copyvio of http://thetvoftomorrowshow.com/speakers/mark-ghuneim. That's the second copyvio I've found on this page. The Dissident Aggressor 13:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)