Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Samiharris (talk | contribs) at 04:53, 24 January 2008 (→WEIGHT and Nocera). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Patrick M. Byrne. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Patrick M. Byrne at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:TrollWarning

Archive: Talk:Patrick M. Byrne/Archive1

Turns

(removing comment by sock )

Hog the article? Everyone is welcome to participate. It's a collaboration. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On further review, I see I've made just three edits to the article. You've made eleven edits, as of this moment. It is inappropriate to tell other editors to stay away because they've edited too much. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(removing comment by sock)

It's great that you're helping, just please don't denigrate the contributions of others, or demand that they stop contributing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RidinHood25, Mightyms , MoneyHabit et al...

are socks of banned user Amorrow (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Our policy is ban on sight, revert on sight. Deleting their commentary outright (which I am about to do) will leave holes. Therefore, other editors are encouraged to decide to remove their replies if desired. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Register articles

Per this discussion, I was prepared to remove the Register link from here. Some IP had removed it earlier. I've gone ahead and removed the other Register story from there that was linked as well, about the mail lists. If one article isn't a reliable source on one article, theres no reason it would be acceptable on another. To apply double standards along those lines would be a total NPOV violation and not good. Lawrence Cohen 07:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether the Register is a "reliable source" is debatable (I see that the Register is quote in Criticism of Misplaced Pages), but the most recent attempt to add the link placed it in the SEC investigation section, which doesn't make sense. I'd tend to agree that the Byrne/Wikipedia/Register thing doesn't merit mention here as long as the Register is the sole source, but it might be worth mentioning in the aforementioned "Criticism" article. OhNoitsJamie 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there was a New York Times source mentioned over on the Weiss page. If the NYT plus the Register is talking about the petty feud between Weiss and Byrne, we would have no excuse to not cover it at least in passing on both articles. Which NYT articles were they? Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's been some hesitancy about adding that language to this article on WEIGHT and duplication grounds, as it is covered in Overstock.com, and it's been discussed elsewhere with Jimbo ruling The Register is not an RS source on this subject matter. That is why JzG removed Register cites from that article. But I imagine one can borrow some of the language and tone of the reference in Overstock for a brief mention here.--Samiharris (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Which NYT article was the source? There shouldn't be any problem with related language appearing in both or all three articles. If the NYT has covered the feud, we have no reason not to mention it on both this page and Weiss's at least in passing. The existence or acknowledgement of a feud that was reported on in an internationally distributed newspaper isn't any sort of possible BLP or WEIGHT violation that I can see. Also, one person can rule an entire site non-RS? I doubt that. I thought it was the fact that I kept seeing multiple people saying that the Register wasn't an RS specifically in regards to Misplaced Pages, not Weiss and Byrne. Lawrence Cohen 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "feud," it is a proxy campaign by Overstock against critics. Look at the sources in the link. That said, I think what's needed here is a reference to the smear campaign on this page that is consistent in tone and sourcing with the stable, consensus version at Overstock.com. Jimbo's authority re sourcing is a mega-issue and you'll have to ask elsewhere on that. Specifically, an article critical of Overstock from the Register was removed from the Overstock page by Jzg.--Samiharris (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times clearly describes it as a feud, or more precisely as an "increasingly vicious online dispute," and as a "flame war among 14-year-old boys."--G-Dett (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was just curious since I kept seeing this all referred to everywhere. What was that NYT source by the way? Lawrence Cohen 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's cited in the Overstock section on ASM, a portion of a "What's Online" column.--Samiharris (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sami. Lawrence Cohen 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks, what's with the blatant censorship of Misplaced Pages criticism? You might as well go and call this place Jimbopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.234.41 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent) There's no "censorship." A Register article highly unfavorable to Byrne was removed from Overstock.com. The Register is simply not an RS source as relates to BLPs.--Samiharris (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a long-term reader of The Register and find it very reliable, thank you very much. However, if you want to turn Misplaced Pages into Jimbopedia, I guess you are free to do whatever you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.234.41 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WEIGHT and Nocera

We seem to be giving a lot of weight to Nocera. I take him as a mainstream source, but I'm a little wary about quoting hearsay like "Though no one will say so publicly, the word is that Utah officials now feel they were snookered by the Overstock C.E.O. And that his behavior at that meeting further damaged his credibility. ..." Cool Hand Luke 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, to put that in context, we need to add a quote from this Deseret News article, describing his prominence as a largest individual campaign contributor in the state. I think that might assuage any WEIGHT concern, by putting it in context. I believe there are other articles along those lines in the local media. --Samiharris (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles