Talk:Mary Turzillo

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

Notablility[edit]

Seems notable-- she is a Nebula Award winner. A quick google search shows 82,000 hits. 76.241.135.35 (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mr. IP. Out of curiosity, have you ever edited wikipedia previously? For example, under a username, or as a different IP? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm clearly biased, but It looks to me as if the problem is lack of citations, not notability per se. From Wikipedia:Notability (people), notability depends only on citations ("has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."). In particular, the first item in the list of what qualifies as notable is "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.". Given that, as pointed out above, this seems to be satisfied; is there any further reason to question notability? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you do appear to be clearly biased. In that this is an article on your wife, which you created. Thanks for raising that -- I've tagged the article appropriately. It is of course a problem, both with regard to your making a comment here, and your having been the originator and a primary editor of this article on your wife. A question for you -- have you ever edited under any other user name or IP name on Wikipedia?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I edit under my own name is to make such things clear. You apparently have no such interest. Do you have a name? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would do well to not begin articles where you have a clear conflict of interest. And to steer clear of all follow-on conflict of interest situations. Yes, I have a name -- is your IQ under 20, are you just asking a stupid question to be uncivil, or are you ignorant enough of how matters work here to suggest that I am doing something untoward in not using my real life name to edit?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest has significantly changed since I started editing six years ago, however, it does contain this statement: "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor."
My statement "do you have a name" was a rhetorical question. The point is, my name, and conflicts of interest, are known to anybody who clicks the link on my name. This puts me at a bit of disadvantage, in that I don't have any idea who I am speaking with. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) You never answered my above question. Have you ever edited under any other user name or IP name on Wikipedia? 2) Your question was at best obtuse. If you wanted to say "you have a name but I don't know it", you could have said that. But it would have been an irrelevant comment. So what? If you have a question along the lines of -- "do you have a conflict of interest here, much as I do in starting, editing, and fighting on the talk page for the article on my wife", you could ask me. (The answer would be -- no, I don't). You are not at a disadvantage in any way here -- it's just that you have a clear COI, that clearly impacts the propriety of your starting and editing this article and carrying on this effort to retain your wife's article on wp.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot verify anything that you say. I do not know your motivations, but you seem to be acting (here and on my article) as if you had an interest in personally attacking me. As far as I can see, the only thing to do in this case is for me to exit the discussion. Bye. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor can I verify anything you say. I never heard of you before this week. I have now asked you twice already, and you have failed to answer -- Have you ever edited under any other user name or IP name on Wikipedia?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article's subject is a Nebula Award Winner, which I believe is enough under GNG. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: Epeefleche and Geoffrey.Landis I'd suggest that you both take a deep breath and discontinue this discussion - I don't think that where you are now will lead to anything that will benefit this article. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Punk. I'm actually increasingly concerned about Landis. He is the husband of the subject of this article. The creator of her article. The #1 contributor to her article. A vocal arguer for the notability of her article. And -- in addition to the obvious COI concerns, which are manifest -- there are critical Sock concerns raised in the above. COI is a legitimate issue here, and socking is a lose-rights-to-edit level issue. The two combined suggest that this needs more light.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate where you are coming from with this. Landis does have a COI, though he has declared this and the article is suitable tagged. He is now not the only vocal arguer for this article -- I will put my hand up and say that the Nebula Award is such that each and every winner should be considered notable for wikipedia's GNG. I'd also state that I would expect that other SF people/writers may weigh in similarly, as the Nebula is seen to be one of the highest awards presented in the SF genre. If Landis has socked, and continues to do so, then I believe it would be appropriate to raise this on the relevant noticeboard. Similarly if Landis tries to WP:OWN this article or reverts attempts to make the article NPOV, then I believe this can and should also be raised. In the meantime I'm going to AGF for all parties concerned. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is your view on the socking issue? And what is your view as to Landis's contributions on this very page -- given his COI. I would have thought, given your sensitivity to the guideline, you might have had something to say on that. It seems to be right on point, and suggest a view of his discussion here that is quite different than the one you/he have expressed. AGF is a rebuttable presumption of course, and guidelines exists for a reason -- since you go out of your way to indicate you will edit within the COI guideline, surely you are aware of how his edits on this page are directly in conflict with them.
I'm also curious -- you have only 100+ edits lifetime to your name, and had not edited in days, and had never, ever edited the two pages on which you have now joined this conversation. How is that you popped suddenly into this conversation?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI believe I have said all I can on the subject of this article. I am more than willing to discuss anything further on the COI noticeboard.Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI and Possible Socking[edit]

In good faith, I've removed the notability tag at this point, to allow focus on the more concerning issues that have developed in this discussion.

A) the COI issues presented by the husband of the subject of this bio having created the bio in the first place, and having been the primary contributor to it, and having argued vociferously on this page in behalf of her notability.

B) The possible sockpuppetry/meat issues presented here, by the husband tag-teaming in the above discussion with an IP from the same location he is in, with his failure to respond directly to my question (posed four times) as to whether he had edited under another name or as an IP, and by the appearance of yet a third editor with only 100 plus edits to his name, to tag-team as well -- despite the fact that he had never edited either of the two pages on which he argued for the husband.

I'm open to suggestions as to how best to address the COI/sock/meat concerns together, since they are all bundled together.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up[edit]

I'm starting work on cleaning up this article. If any editors with a possible conflict of interest would like to leave any helpful refs or snippets in this section that would be great. If anyone else wants to chip in and help that would also be greatly appreciated. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’ve been watching all of this from 37,000 feet. This is largely a personality-conflict issue. According to Locus online, here, the Nebula Awards “are the Oscars of the SF/F field.” Accordingly, Ms. Turzillo as a 1999 winner, is clearly sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The issue is simply about article content and ensuring it is all fully encyclopedic.

    You, Punkrocker, know that as someone with an inherent conflict of interest, it is too easy to make a biography on a living person too “good-gosh-golly”, which can make articles quickly run afoul with WP:SPAM. I suggest you take a good look at at least a half dozen other biographies to get a feel for the tone and scope expected. Be sure that matters of fact are properly cited to a reliable source. If you are tempted to add something for which you can not find a citation, then that is an indicator that the bit you are trying to add is not sufficiently notable and should be excluded.

    I’m removing the spam tag now. I’ll leave it to someone else to add it in sometime in the future (maybe just a few days) if shortcomings exist.

    The “1991” in your screen name suggests baby-smooth skin on your face. So I also suggest you deliberate at least six hours before posting a response on a discussion page when dealing with other editors who A) are experienced wikipedians, and B) have been around the block a few times in life. Playing coy when directly asked by another editor about whether you operate multiple accounts or have a meatpuppet does not impress, nor does it engender support from the wikipedian community, which (though this bit of news might surprise you), you need. And for whatever it’s worth, everything can be double-checked on Wikipedia as to who is who; you have no idea the tools and techniques. And without passing judgement on whether or not you are operating multiple accounts or have a meatpuppet, if you are, that might confer a short-term advantage but is seldom a wise, long-term strategy. Greg L (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of editing on this page in 2005, and it's been on my watchlist since then. I'll see what refs I can dig up for the facts in the article. Shunn (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Shunn, it would be appreciated. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, many thanks for your feedback. For the record I have never been or operated a meat puppet, or sock puppet, though I may have previously edited from an IP address many months ago when I was not logged in. I welcome anyone to check everything I have done on wikipedia. Also, I was not born in 1991. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. Thanks to all, including User:Epeefleche and User:Punkrocker1991 who found the other’s elbow too close to their martini while seated at the bar. The proof is in the pudding: a well-cited, balanced, well-written article with a nice, encyclopedic tone. Our readership are the beneficiaries of the effort. Greg L (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I removed the COI tag for the moment. What I see of the article in its current state indicates that such a tag is unnecessary. Certainly, if a major contributor is married to the subject of the article, that can lead to articles that read like a glossy, four-color brochure. Due in no small part to recent copyediting and added citations, I see no need to alert the wikipedian community to the existence of a COI issue since the article is currently in no dire need of emergency repairs. 03:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I think the COI tag is to alert the community to be on the lookout for the COI edits, and apply strict scrutiny, and inasmuch as for example this IP seems to be editing from the area of the COI editor's office in the Glenn buildings, we can't be too alert.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Turzillo. 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) 22:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Turzillo. 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) 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Turzillo. 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) 12:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mary Turzillo. 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) 20:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Turzillo&oldid=1204758032"