User talk:NYlegal1

February 2011
Your recent edits to Edward E. Kramer could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No threat was made or intended. The bent of the article is clearly intended to defame a live person who has not been convicted of an offense.  A statement of the obvious does not assign any impending actions, legal or otherwise. NYlegal1 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Support new version
I'll support your current version of the article. If anyone challenges you on the version I'll defend the current language and try to stop them from making changes.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It's greatly appreciated. The attempt here is to state the facts for a BLP with a NBPOV of someone who is not tried or convicted.  NYlegal1 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward E. Kramer
Hi NYlegal, I've protected the above because of the reverting, but I protected an earlier version that seems to be well-sourced, clearer, and has consensus. It looks as though you may be personally involved, so the best thing would be for you to explain your concerns on the talk page, but not edit the article itself. Are you willing to agree to that? You might want to read our conflict of interest guideline in case it applies here. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Be happy to, however, I'd appreciate it if you would FIRST lock the non-biased version pending discussion, since the Administrator OrangeMike publicly and vocally has pushed an anti-Kramer/DragonCon agenda in fandom and fannish blogs for years, and his repeated editing, reverting, and other not-so-subtle comments clearly violate conflict of interest guideline, of which you are familiar. In Unquiet Dreams, OrangeMike writes of Kramer's convention:


 * orangemike wrote:
 * Feb. 10th, 2009 01:17 am (UTC)
 * It sounds like all the worst, ugliest, stupidest things about a con grown too large for its fandom(s): crowded, expensive, and above all non-fannish, with a bunch of passive consumers sitting around listening to actors and other "stars" perform, while posing in the costumes they bought from some dealer.


 * OrangeMike has every right to state his opinions in blogs. However, Wikipedia is NOT his blog.  When his opinions are warped into his role as a Wikipedia administrator, and his editing and vandaliasm of an article is specifically done to show his own personal bias, then he has violated Wikipedia guidelines.


 * Wikipedia's intent is to present the BLP using a NBPOV, especially when the BLP is untried and not convicted. Admins and editors should not use snippets of articles and quotes from those biased (i.e. the prosecutor) while blanking sourced comments from anyone to balance.  The section can even be more simplified.  When Administrator / Veteran Editor SouthernNights agreed to the entry which eliminated the pre-conceived bias against Kramer, I assumed it was a starting point for future discussion, and the Administrator with the demonstrated COI would stop vandalizing the article.

NYlegal1 (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at the previous version before restoring it, and the sources, and it seems not only well-sourced, but has more explanatory power than the version you prefer, which didn't explain the delay. Is there anything in the current version that isn't correctly sourced, per WP:SOURCES? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The version which appeared as a consensus with SouthernNights appeared to be balanced and written in encyclopedic style. The blanking of other properly sourced quotations and information for balance has seemingly been unaddressed in the version you have chosen, and the present version shows bias against LP, at least in the minds of 2 different editors.  Why not leave the version sans biased and one-sided quotes during the discussion? NYlegal1 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in the current version that isn't correctly sourced, or that you regard as inaccurate? Specific examples would be helpful. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "version which appeared as a consensus with SouthernNights" is a distortion of the facts. According to his posts on my talk page, SouthernNights gave up trying to improve NYlegal's version because NYlegal is willing to devote more energy to edit-warring about the topic than any of the rest of us. -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What SouthernNights wrote above was: I'll support your current version of the article. If anyone challenges you on the version I'll defend the current language and try to stop them from making changes.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * NYlegal1 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He/she wrote that before giving up, yes. And your point? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Answering SlimVirgin, I do find it a misconception for GA Court ruling from 2007 to be made to look like it agrees with a quote in 2010. I also find it odd that any quote to balance the one against Kramer, however properly sourced, continues to be blanked by Orange Mike. NYlegal1 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I need more specificity than that, because I know nothing about this issue, so I'm just trying to enforce the policies, which are very clear on this kind of issue. The article is a biography of a living person, and must therefore rely almost entirely on secondary sources. Source material self-published by Kramer is allowed with caution, so long as he doesn't discuss third parties: see WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. Primary sources may be used to augment the secondary sources, but nothing in the article should be supported only by primary sources: see WP:BLPPRIMARY.


 * Those are the policies, and if they're applied strictly here, they will almost certainly end whatever the dispute is. I'll post this on the talk page too. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you've done everything except respond to the relevant points in my response, and your editing left the stated misconception intact. As I've posted in the discussion, since the criminal allegations section is the largest of all in the entry, it would appear that quite possibly, Kramer accomplishments aren't relevant enough to constitute an WP entry at all.NYlegal1 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not being specific enough for me to be able to help. As for the section size, it's 128 words of a 360 word article, not counting the bibliography. If you feel he's not notable enoug for a bio, you can nominate it for deletion. See here. If you need help with that, feel free to ask me, though it's actually easier than it looks at first glance. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OrangeMike has a specific agenda and has demonstrated his object dislike for Kramer and DragonCon (which Kramer has not been involved in for a decade) and no other Admin appears concerned with his one-sided editing and and quips despite a demonstrated COI which violates WP policy. OrangeMike and his apparent sock puppets of late, seem not to worry about WP articles on other large conventions, for example, Wizard Entertainment events, or does not note them as commercial media conventions in their intro, nor do they censor sourced materials because they cannot confirm the authority (i.e. questioning a SFWA trade publication by OrangeMike, who suddenly after being in fandom for 20 years pretends he doesn't know). It took all of about 2 seconds to find the name and site referencing one of Kramer's published fiction pieces (http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM2146994&R=2146994) and there are probably a dozen more, yet an Administrator unlisted his as a 'writer' (you need numerous professional sales to be an Active SFWA member, being merely an editor doesn't count).NYlegal1 (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP
Hi, this edit of yours was a BLP violation, and is not in the source you provided. You have a clear COI there, and if you edit the article again you risk being blocked. Please confine your input to making suggestions on the talk page, though bear in mind that our BLP policy extends to talk pages too. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I brought up several points of discussion on both this talk page and Kramer's, but no one responded, including the clear COI of a specific Admin and his self-serving editing. Considering the discussion BLP Current Legal Cases which you contributed to, I find the extent of bias exhibited against Kramer in the editing and the undue weight given to the decade-old allegations unfortunate. NYlegal1 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You should post a request for edits, along with good sources, on the talk page under a new header so that people don't miss them. There's no excuse for the edit you just made, which was a BLP violation and quite false, so I'm afraid you've demonstrated that you can't continue to edit the article. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit made is factually true, and is noted in the article as referenced. That's why Cohen's article discusses it. A follow-up noting that Turner was formally recused from the case is noted as follow-up in a later edition, for which I will provide a specific link.  Can you explain why the other changes were reversed, or is it standard to lead with information that is well over a decade out of date? NYlegal1 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI
SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)