Talk:Libby Garvey/Archive 1

explanation

I reverted this edit from That man from Nantucket. That man from Nantucket recently nominated this article for discussion. Usually a nomination is only made when a contributor thinks an article cannot be improved. It always puzzles me when a nominator begins editing an article they nominated for deletion, when the discussion is underway. Do apparently routine edits to the article mean they think the article does merit continued existence after all? But in the case they changed their mind, the obvious thing to do is to withdraw their nomination.

Of course, compliance with WP:AGF precludes me considering darker motives.

Anyhow, I reverted this particular edit because it seems to have been made without any effort to see how widely reported Garvey's references to RoFo were report ed. Geo Swan (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It puzzles me how one joirnalist from Tonroto can be referred to as "Journalists". Do you have other sources than Spurr that characterize Libby as rogue member of local government" and "Virginia's Rob Ford". That edit attempts to make it seem that multiple RS are making that bold statement, which certainly contravenes the BLP policy.That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to offer you my best advice, the advice I would give you if I were your best friend. If I were your best friend I would do my best to give you a tactful heads-up that your edits could be interpreted as tenditious. I reverted your edit, and explained why. I have made multiple requests to you to comply with WP:BEFORE. If you had done so you would have seen for yourself that Garvey's comments triggered multiple comments from journalists in Toronto.

Sadly, you made the same excision a second time, without taking the obvious step of performing a web search on "Rob Ford" "Libby Garvey".

You made assertions, in the AFD, that covering Garvey's comments about Ford's views was an "ad hominen attack". I replied to those assertion "BLP is not intended to protect politicians from having their gaffes covered. Our policies require us to report neutrally on what some might see as their gaffes, but when something a Virginia politician says is picked up in multiple publications in a whole other country, yes, that is definitely something worthy of coverage here. Practically none of the references we use is written so that they measure up to the wikipedia standard of the neutral point of view. It is not required for us to find references that measure up to NPOV, because we make sure we quote, summarize, paraphrase our references in a way that measures up to NPOV. I think I did so in how I covered the Toronto coverage of Garvey. If you disagreed you should have said so, on the talk page, or substituted your own wording that you thought was more neutral. We don't delete articles over disagreements over whether passage comply with NPOV.

I see a certain irony here. Your edit summary said I should seek consensus on the talk page. However, you explicitly stated, twice, in the AFD, that you were going to refuse to engage in a dialogue with me. [1], [2]

I am going to explain why your best friend would warn you your earlier edits could seem tenditious in subsequent comments. Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit? I think your best friend would suggest you should consider whether it also looks tendetious. You wrote in the AFD, "known for opposing streetcars". Which is totally misleading because in fact she opposed a specific streetcar." So, if you are claiming that Garvey didn't oppose all streetcar systems, just a specific streetcar system, why didn't you replace the material you excised with "known for opposing the Columbia Pike Streetcar"? Geo Swan (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit, with the inflammatory edit summary, "Holy shit! He didn't shake her hand!!!!" I think your best friend would suggest you should consider whether it also looks tendetious. You are entitled to think not shaking someone's hand, after a bitter political disagreement, is not worth mentioning. But a local writer, familiar with the local political scene, did think it was worth mentioning. They are an RS. You and I are not RS. Complying with wikipedia policy requires us defering to RS, like Jaffe. Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In this edit you removed a paragraph, with the edit summary "Unreliable source". I think your best friend would suggest you should consider whether it also looks tendetious. I know you called the reference for the paragraph you removed an "Unreliable source", without bothering to look at the archives at WP:RSN, to see if other contributors had raised the same concern in the past. Well those concerns had been raised. I didn't see a single consensus definitely concluding references to patch should be considered unreliable. On the contrary, I saw many discussions which ended after someone said something like, "no source should be considered an RS all the time, for every single topic, it is always a judgment call, but when there are reasons to believe there are editorial controls, and the writer is writing like a professional, we should generally regard the reference as an RS."

I'd never heard of patch before. Up until yesterday I thought Arlington Patch was a small but professional, regional news source. After consulting the RSN archives, I see it is an online enterprise, that serves all regions. I didn't know that.

But it does employ professional editors. Its most recent iteration, Patch Media, employs a pullitzer prize winner as one of its senior editors. It seems to provide material aimed at the National, State, regional, and purely local audiences, allowing people indistinguishable from non-notable bloggers to submit material aimed at purely local audiences, with however, editorial controls over the material aimed at National, State, and regional audiences. I looked at the biography Patch Media provided for this particular article. It described the author as someone with 20 years experience in journalism, listing other publications she wrote for. Even if, for the sake of argument, this online bio was padded, and she was a former journalist, writing for free, to try to bulk up her portfolio of items, so she could apply for a paid gig, after staying home for a few years to raise a baby, I am prepared to consider her an experienced writer, and one, who from the website's FAQ, had her article vetted by professional editors. Geo Swan (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• TL;DR. I don't do verbose, and your advice/criticism is something I don't want nor care about. Don't restore that "Torotno journalists" calling her a rouge politician and Rob Ford without multiple sources explicitly saying so, or I will bring this to ANI as a BLP violation. I suggest you post any modifications to that blurb here first in order to avoid ANIThat man from Nantucket (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • That man from Nantucket - your edit summary called for talk page discussion. Did you really mean to direct me to discuss editorial issues here, only to tell me you are not going to bother reading that reply?

Okay, for the record, you seemed to disputing whether the Toronto area Now magazine was a reliable source. You called it an "alternative" publication, and apparently, where you come from, that equals unreliable.

Well Toronto, where I live, is richly served by reliable sources. Toronto has four daily newspapers with large circulations. Now magazine is a free weekly newspaper, also with a large circulation. It publishes substantive stories. Every issue has at least one long substantive story. Some issues have several. Shorter articles are also generally substantive.

I take pictures of instances of local instances of facadism, and I am looking forward to reading the current issue's long, substantive article on the history of facadism in Toronto. Over 300 wikipedia articles reference Now magazine. That is about two-thirds as many as reference http://www.washingtonpost.com/ . So, it is substantially referenced and I don't think I have to apologize for referencing it here. Geo Swan (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've made my position well known at this point. We won't be using the inflammatory language TN used against Ms Garvey. We won't be using OR to state what she is or is not notable for.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decisions are made by the community. Do you really mean to suggest that you get to dictate what an article can or can't contain, on your sole authority?

You have both called for discussion, and then told me you can't be bothered to read my reply. Do you think that is a defensible position? I urge you to step back, calm down, realize that you aren't defending your position with proper reference to our policies and wikidocuments, and make a greater effort to explain your position, calmly and substantively.

For instance, you have made repeated claims that passages you don't like lapse from compliance with BLP, and then you completely ignored my counter-arguments. Geo Swan (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That man from Nantucket turned out to be a sockpuppet, as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Which Hazel?

They have been indefinitely blocked, so I am not going to wait for them to reply, and will feel free to revert their contentious edits. Geo Swan (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)