Talk:Deborah Glick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Vandalism by The Vandal JamesMLane and Other Partisan Censors 2 Right on 3 Adding Image 4 Page protection

[edit] Vandalism by The Vandal JamesMLane and Other Partisan Censors

Just stop already, you've totally discredited yourselves, you are nothing more than establishment schills who want to stifle anyone who disagrees with you and get free advertising for your political allies on Wikipedia.

You don't own Wikipedia, get over it. Nicolas Leobold New York, N.Y. nleobold@msn.com Constituent/Victim of Deborah Glick and the rest of The NY Gov't Authoritarians

As I stated in my edit summary, the applicable principles here include WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:BLP. More important is that the generalized criticisms you've included aren't appropriate to the Glick bio article. They're simply expressions of libertarian discontent with liberal Democrats in general. That's not what Wikipedia is for. JamesMLane t c 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, these are not pov, nor are they in main bio section, these are universally acknowledged criticisms of Glick by her libertarian/free market critics. Other criticisms by people from different parties/philosophies are welcomed, such as Green Party, Constitution Party, etc., even Communist Party. Criticisms sections are used for politician bios on Wikipedia all the time, Glick is not exempt from opposing viewpoints, and Wikipedia is not free propaganda or advertising for her, although I am aware that you intend it to be. You guys are probably partisan dirty trick artists from the DP and you get paid to troll, ambush and character assassinate all over the net. Won't work here, since you can't control Wikipedia, you can't buy it, and you can't stop people from restoring your vandalism. Oh, and they're not generalized criticisms, they're quite specific. Why don't you stop the lies already. Nicolas Leobold

Re political leanings, as stated by another editor, "political leanings don't precede such basic bio facts as state, office, and party." Dogru144 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right on

This is not a private blog. I have removed the POV, FreeRepublic, NewsMax type edits. This is not RandPedia. Dogru144 00:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on. This is not DemoratPedia, either, nor is it AuthoriPedia. It's unfortunate you're afraid of the truth and opposing viewpoints, but then all "progressive" Democrats are afraid of that, that's what makes you socialists and authoritarians. Please Stop the Censorship and Vandalizing. Thanks, Nicolas Leobold

[edit] Adding Image

original, with Scott Stringer

trimmed to focus on Ms. Glick

I was able to find an image on Flickr the photographer of which graciously put it under CC-BY-SA for our use. I trimmed it to focus on Ms. Glick, but perhaps someone else could do a better job. I uploaded both versions to Commons just in case. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I've protected the page because of the slow edit war. Nleobold, you need to find reliable sources for any criticism, and you need to stick closely to what the sources say when you write it up. The passage you were adding looked like personal opinion. Please discuss here what you want to add, and say who your sources are. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Infinite protection because of a few edits by a single editor seems a bit much. The article has only been edited a total of 7 times in the past week. I second the discuss business, but can we try it without the protection for a little more, please? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

The reason I protected was because it's a BLP issue. I'm happy to unprotect so long as the BLP issues stay off the page; perhaps Nleobold could give an assurance that the criticism section won't be restored without sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nleobold has in the past given little indication of willingness to engage in genuine dialog, and has also displayed little interest in adhering to Wikipedia rules. A short block imposed by ElinorD did not succeed in altering this user's conduct. I dislike protection, though. Without protection, the most likely outcome is that Nleobold will continue to make these improper edits, they will continue to be reverted, and Nleobold will eventually decide that he's wasting his time and will go away (or will concentrate on his editing of Sam Sloan -- some of his edits there look dubious to me but I don't have the time to get into that article). JamesMLane t c 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected after AnonEMouse's request. We'll see what happens when Nleobold returns. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on the conduct of Nleobold. He has been on a one-man campaign to use this bio article and that of Congressman Jerrold Nadler as politically-charged blogs. He has been at this for at least a month, not for just a few edits. Dogru144 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nleobold has returned and has resumed his campaign of repeatedly reverting to his preferred version, without addressing the issues that other editors have raised. He persists in deleting the photo. He persists in adding an unsourced passage that doesn't even relate to Glick particularly (it's more like "Some Issues on Which Libertarians Disagree with Liberal Democrats"). JamesMLane t c 12:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. ElinorD (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)