Talk:Jonathan Gleich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the article dated 13 October 2009 is this one the one above was the first nomination for deletion Lscappel (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted before (see AFD) and the general consensus was to re-do the article to conform with wiki standards, which has been done. I have confirmed all references, and sources - Please do so as well before flagging. Lscappel (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the record of AFDs to identify the first and second nominations. -- Whpq (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's questions[edit]

This article was flagged with: 

{{Article issues
|article = y
|coi = October 2009
|orphan = October 2009
|refimproveBLP= October 2009
}}

I am confused about WHAT you want me to do, Please give me some assistance. Lscappel (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification.[edit]

I am starting to show proof of verified stories, The article from Spotlight health that was a .pdf
The actual website is gone (where the .pdf was created), and the internet wayback machine cache on the time period is sparse
I have found a confirmation of the author Michael Falcon writing a article in USA Today for Spotlight health, This interview with Jonathan is in my opinion one of the best articles on his background. Article link
If the only source for that article is on the subject's own Web site, then Wikipedia can't use it, per reliable sources. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.[edit]

Here is the Original NY Magazine article showing Earth News central being one of the top 8 BBS's in NYC and Here is the NY Magazine letter to the editor confirming Earth News Central BBS being one of the top 8 BBS's in NYC.
I read them both. Regarding the former, the name "Gleich" is not found anywhere in the issue (see http://books.google.com/books?id=5OUCAAAAMBAJ&q=gleich). While "Earth News Central" is included in a list of 8 "top BBSs" at the very end of the piece, the article does not state that it's "one of the top 8 in NYC." There is no mention in the article itself of "Earth News Central."
Regarding the latter link, it's a letter to the editor by Gleich, which isn't useful. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter[edit]

Here is a little about me: I've written chapters in two published books: An Actor Succeeds by Terrence Hines as well as Bandits On The Information Superhighway by Daniel Barrett. I also illustrated all the graphics for Writing Great Screenplays For Film And TV, an AFI publication by Dona Cooper.
I have written for various websites (now defunct) on animal husbandry and care as well as emergency services during Katrina. Sadly, it seems my most notable contribution to the internet is my handwriting (under one of my pennames, redstar), a free font created by Daniel Gautier.
I have also written three as yet unpublished stories for Ringling Bros. in an attempt (under their R&D department) to create a series of children's books that would accompany the sale of a plush dog.
I have been co writing the book (Chronic Masticator) with him for over a period of two years now, and in working with Jonathan Gleich on his autobiography, I realized what I was dealing with was a modern day Renaissance Man. The weight loss was only a part of his life. I wanted to include the parts of his life on Wikipedia that are not being covered in the book and that have become part of the culture of New York City. He is well known in the Segway community for fighting the traffic violations in court. He also has a following for his over-the-top Halloween and Mermaid Day parade costumes. He's frequently called by several journalists in the city for his opinions and soundbites. This is why I believe he should have a Wikipedia entry and and should be deemed notable.
Well, it's clear that you have what Wikipedia considers to be a Conflict of interest. I strongly recommend that you read best practices for editors with a conflict of interest. Your best bet (imo) is to keep your editing to the talk page and not touch the article itself. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it[edit]

I am NOT going to attach this article to any other wiki page, until it is approved for permanent publication, that would be more work for editors if article is deleted. Lscappel (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's two different things going on here: first, I agree that adding incoming links is probably not yet necessary, as it's likely that this article isn't sticking around for long.
Second, you wrote "until it is approved for permanent publication"—I don't know what you mean by this.
  • On Wikipedia, no article is ever guaranteed permanent publication. An article started by Jimmy Wales on the day of Wikipedia's founding could be put up for deletion tomorrow, and if the community consensus is that it should go, it goes.
  • There is no approval process as such. While there are policies and guidelines on deletion, the only policy on creation is to do what you've already done: create the article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from User:DoriSmith[edit]

My personal opinion as to what I'd expect to see in this article, but don't as it now stands:

  • How he's created something or changed something that will impact future generations.
  • How he's notable outside of the NYC area.
  • How he's notable outside of a few groups (such as 80s era NYC BBSs, "the Segway community," or Mermaid parade regulars).

Without something like this (which the article does not currently have), it's likely that this version won't pass a deletion debate.

Additionally, please don't take maintenance tags off the article, whether or not you move them to the talk page. When they're on an article page, that article is automatically added to certain categories, which other editors can then use as a source for pages that need help.

If you haven't already read it, it's never too late to read Your first article. If you have any further questions, just ask! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from User:Lscappel[edit]

First I want to thank you for reading the article, and confirming details, I have spoken with many editors who have not even bothered to confirm any of my facts.
Here are my responses:


  • How he's created something or changed something that will impact future generations.

His significant weight loss, and the fact he has kept it off almost 5 years, is a accomplishment in itself, His story has influenced others, and will continue to do so.

  • How is he notable outside of the NYC area.

His weight loss, as I stated before, And his current project Zoltar has been getting nationwide recognition (make magazine, gizmoto, etc) though just a 'gimmick' its still getting the attention of people.


  • How is he notable outside of a few groups (such as 80s era NYC BBSs, "the Segway community," or Mermaid parade regulars).

Jonathan with his continued riding of his segway to get to work, and still being ticketed is a protest to get segways legal in NYC, when one person stands defiant against a city, it Is Foolish, but noble. If the law does change, Jonathan will have had something to do with it

As far as editing and conflict of interest, I am using facts taken from research, and keeping my personal opinions offline as far as I know,
I am keeping with the rules of conduct,
your edit left the article a mess, and I am going to correct things.

Lscappel (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lscappel inserted the entire section here from User talk:IronGargoyle#Jonathan Gleich. I've removed it because anyone interested can read it there. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lscappel inserted the entire page here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination). I've removed it because anyone interested can read it there. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

marked for deletion[edit]

I believe this is a user page turned into a glorification of ones self page. This should be moved back to the creators usertalk. Mokaiba11 (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" but there's been no acknowledgement"[edit]

Ummm, Dori What has the conversation we have been having CHOPPED LIVER????? I am doing *EVERYTHING* above board and I am TRYING MY BEST TO BE ACCURATE, I was under the illusion that more experienced Wiki editors HELP the lesser experienced editors get out a good article!

Lscappel (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've acknowledged that you have a conflict of interest and that you've read and understood both that article and best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, I've missed it. If you have read and understood both, then you understand that you should not be editing this article at all, and why it was a poor idea for you to create it in the first place. I haven't seen an acknowledgement of that, either.
If I thought that there was the makings of a good article here, I'd be more than happy to help. But there's nothing here showing anything beyond lap band surgery (not a sign of notability), 80s era BBS ownership (not a sign of notability), a whole lot of traffic tickets (not a sign of notability), and 1st and 3rd place finishes in a local parade (not a sign of notability). I'm sure his family and friends think he's a wonderful guy—but that's not a sign of notability, either. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dori, He has done more then that, But you have deleted it all, sighting it as
"It may contain original research or unverifiable claims"
And re-nominating the article AFd before giving me a chance to show proof of it.
Lscappel (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted statements that were both non-notable and unreferenced (as seen here), with an edit summary of "Wikified & reworked into an article, but probably insufficiently notable."
I don't know what you're referring to as me deleting anything while "sighting" [sic] {{or}}—generally, I use that for content that's in the article which is possibly notable, but insufficiently referenced.
In order for me to re-nominate the article for AFD, I would have had to have nominated it previously. That was done by User:Ironholds on 2 September. It was noted at the AFD discussion (on the day it opened) that you also had the article in your userspace. The article was deleted on 9 September by User:Juliancolton. The anon IP User:24.185.128.244 (you?) took it to Deletion Review on 13 September, where the deletion was overwhelmingly endorsed. User:IronGargoyle closed the DRV on 21 September with the comment, "Substantial improvements in the userspace draft are still needed for recreation to be permitted." You worked on the article in your userspace from 22 September to 4 October, when you moved it back to mainspace.
You were supposed to keep working on the article in your userspace until you'd found sufficient proof of notability. If you haven't found it yet, are you sure it exists? (and yes, I've looked also, and found nothing relevant/usable).
And finally, I think I should note that no, your previous comment was (again) neither an acknowledgement of your COI or anything showing that you've read the relevant policies and guidelines. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reply[edit]

"You were supposed to keep working on the article in your userspace until you'd found sufficient proof of notability. If you haven't found it yet, are you sure it exists? (and yes, I've looked also, and found nothing relevant/usable)."

I did continue to work in my user space and believed I had found enough information (in fact, you actually helped me in locating the Virtual Macintosh article by Don Crabb of The Chicago Sun Times). I then went and asked for reviews and help YOU were the first person to give any comments, and with your comments you went and edited out what YOU thought was "insufficiently referenced" Now I know you are a good researcher and you have won accolades for your investigative work / editing skills but instead of helping me, you removed / edited / and judged the article and Jonathan as being non relevant, Removing almost half of the references I provided.

As far as the unconfirmed details, it's very hard to prove a radio show from the late 1970's and friendship with celebrities. I have photos and stories and somewhere here an article from "The Monster Times" and "Starlog" talking about the radio show. As far as Jonathan having no "notability", I am amazed that people like Greg Packer who "makes things up" is more relevant than a person who has done so many varied things.

And for the record
"I HAVE read the relevant policies and guidelines, I have read the Nobility Guidelines, I have read the rules and regulations concerning conflict of interest" is that enough acknowledgement, for you or do I need to use CAPS LOCK?

Lscappel (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For any editor looking to help improve this article, Here is the original page with all references intact.

Lscappel (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the three challenges, they have been online for a year with no update
Jonathan Gleich
macgeek800 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jonathan Gleich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan article message[edit]

Please help this orphan article by adding links to it in related articles and lists. Once it has an incoming link from at least one article or list, the orphan tag can be removed (disambiguation pages, redirects and draft articles do not count). Three or more incoming links are ideal. The Find link tool may help, but not in all cases.

JoeNMLC (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Gleich&oldid=1202311872"