This article was nominated for deletion on 19 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
FrankSanello (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
I have added two references or external links to Frank Sanello's listing on Wikipedia. Please do not delete. My name was misspelled several times as SanellA, not SanellO. (Actually, SanellA, which is wrong. My last name is Sanello.
There were also formatting errors I changed. I did not add editorial content. Someone incorrectly wrote in an earlier draft that the publisher of my biography, Naked Instinct: The Unauthorized Biography of Sharon Stone, settled with the law firm of Rosenfeld, Susman, Meyer, and left me without a lawyer to defend me. NOT true. The publisher, Carol, did not settle, and the case went to trial in LA Superior Court in Santa Monica. This info is confirmed in citations from the LA Times and the NY Post in references on Frank Sanello article.
The publisher and I won the $30 million libel suit filed by Sharon Stone's law firm. We were acquitted of libel after a four-week civil trial. The previous info about the publisher settling with the law firm is simply not true, so I corrected it.
The info that the publisher settled out of court and left me to defend myself without an attorney is simply not true. Both Ann O'Neill's article in the LA Times and the later NY Post article headlined, "Author Beats Libel Rap," which I think you removed from External Links, both confirm that we did go to trial...and we did win.
I also quoted (and cited) the passage in Naked Instinct: The Unauthorized Biography of Sharon Stone that generated the law suit. The passage is on p. xxiii of the book, which is listed on Wiki's OpenLibrary.org page, as are all the other books mentioned in the article on Frank Sanello.
I think you removed and updated NY Post footnote that said, "Biographer Bests Libel Rap" or something along those lines. The more recent article in the NY Post contradicts the earlier Post article that said early on publisher Steve Schragis was going to settle or had settled, which is not true.
Not true. In an early interview with the NY Post, Schragis said he wanted to settle to avoid the cost of a court case, but the law firm refused to settle for less than $250,000. Schragis' libel carrier, AIG, didn't want to settle or set a precedent of paying out for malicious, nuisance or promotional libel suits, and the case did go to trial.
Details provided of case being "SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WEST DISTRICT ROSENFELD, MEYER & SUSMAN, LLP and WILLIAM SKRZYNIARZ, Plaintiff, v. CAROL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CAROL PUBLISHING GROUP, FRANK SANELLO and DOES 1 - 10, Defendants. Case No.: SC048183" The details of this case summary per the [1] seems to suggest that the article which states specifically that Carol settled out of court may be incorrect. --nonsenseferret00:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
was the amount in question $3 million or $30 million
I cannot find any of the sources which mentions the number $30m, the only sources are $3m, please provide a source for this larger figure --nonsenseferret21:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James Murphy, the attorney who represented the publisher, Steve Schragis, head of Carol Publishing, will confirm the $30 million figure. Call him at (415) 788-1900 or email jmurphy@mpbf.com
Yet another problem with my profile is the incorrect formatting of a link to a Los Angeles Times article that proves I won the $30 million libel and "interference with economic/business relationship" suit.
This is the current, incorrectly formatted citation in my profile. The text preceding the citation also represents poor usage or style which I would like to fix:
"In 1999, Sanello was sued by Sharon Stone’s former law firm after his biography of the actress, Naked Instinct, quoted a member of the firm discussing Stone’s unusual love life. The actress didn’t sue but her firm, which she fired after the bio came out, sued Sanello for $30 million for libel and interference with a business relationship. A jury determined that the author had not libeled the law firm. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/10/local/me-21004) The firm of attorneys did not take kindly to losing this landmark case. The headline in the LA times [the LA times reference should be in italics, LA should be written out as Los Angeles] read "Law Firm Loser in Flap Over Stone Bio" http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/10/local/me-21004
As you can see, the formatting and lack of italicization of LA Times needs to be fixed. I'm afraid to do that because it could be another violation of NPOV. Is it?
It lasted a grueling 4 weeks! At the end, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty of libel and interference with economic relationship or "tortious inferference."
A few minutes ago I added a link from a legal .org site defining "tortious interference." I tried to create a footnote by editing the source code for the link to the LA Times article by Ann W. O'Neill, "Law Firm Is Loser in Flap Over Stone Bio." LA Times retrieved 7 July 2013, which proves that we were acquitted.
I used the citation format [1] in "edit source" mode, but that didn't create a footnote, just the [2] formatting.
you had some problems with visual editor, don't worry, if you make suggestions on this page rather than entering things in the article then it won't cause you any more problems --nonsenseferret21:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early newspaper articles cannot be found in the online archive
BTW, I can't find either the LA Times article or the misleading NY Post Article, The Naked Truth About Sharon Stone, but the articles don't exist in the LA Times or NY Post archives.
Were you able to retrieve the two articles somehow? I couldn't!
The law firm refused to settle, and both the publisher and I went to trial. The jury acquitted us of all charges. I added that because the passage you inserted about the suit not trying to determine if the gossip I quoted about Stone that a partner in her law firm, William Skryzniarz, told me on New Year's Eve 1996. That info is on p. xxiii of Naked Instinct, which is listed on OpenLibrary.org, which I believe is owned by Wikipedia, no?
YI think everyone is clear that the court was not interested whether the claims about Sharon Stone were true or not, only whether or not those claims were spoken by the lawyer, and whether Sanello alleging that the lawyer did make those claims was defamatory and resulting in damages. --nonsenseferret21:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for questions of my "notability," may I humbly point out that dozens of other Wikipedia articles quote my books as legitimate citations/references for those articles. See Wikipedia's articles on The Knights Templars and The Opium Wars.
My books on those topics are quoted several times in those Wikipedia articles.
Y I don't think notability is in question here. The article has survived a previous deletion discussion, I see no reason to think it will be deleted --nonsenseferret21:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that I lectured at Temple Isaiah on March 17, 2013, on "Hitler's Helpers: Breckinridge Long and the U.S. State Department's Complicity in the Holocaust."
Hunh! Third person source re: what? I'm trying to send you the flyer to prove I lectured but no one has responded to my request. Do you need a blood sample to prove I attended the Holocaust conference??? Why do you need someone to comment on my lecture. A Holocaust survivor couldn't remember my name during the later Q&A session, so he said, "As the...scholar here said about..."
The lecture wasn't recorded, but his comment doesn't have to be inserted in my Wiki bio because his flattering statement doesn't prove ANYTHING, except possibly my notability, which was established way back in 2011 after a challenge by bondeas and a recent, erroneous challenge by Mlpearc, the plumber/editor.
I can't prove that the Auschwitz survivors applauded at the end of my lecture. I would just like to reference the lecture, which did take place on March 17, 2013, at Temple Isaiah in Palm Springs. Isn't the link to the Mensch International Foundation and the flyer enough to prove that I lectured at Temple Isaiah?
Wikipedia says you can add notability to an article by mentioning the subject's lecture experience. My Holocaust lecture certainly adds notability per Wiki's guidelines.
Frank, I'm not sure what sort of picture you are referring to or what it is with reference to, can you respond to this point here and give more info? --nonsenseferret21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the "image" or flyer proving I lectured at Temple Isaiah about the Holocaust on March 17, 2013:
here's the filename, nonsense: File:Holocaust Conference 2.jpgThe community (Temple Isaiah) is invited to a lecture and discussion on FDR & Breckinridge Long during the Holocaust
it's common domain because the head of the Mensch Intl. Foundation spammed everybody to get them to attend!
Uh, folks, I wrote the passage below, identifying what I suspected correctly represented "original research" on July 7, 2013. Today, July 8, 2013, someone removed the following passage about my encounter with Arnold Schwarzengger in the jungle outside Puerta Vallarta. Fine with me! Although the incident did take place. I didn't report the incident in the article I wrote about Schwarzenegger for my columns syndicated by United Media, which is defunct, because United Media, like Wikipedia, didn't allow first person journalism, that is, injecting myself into the interview.
I suspect this is the passage that generated the "original research" flag "He [Frank Sanello] once sweated [poor usage or style] in the jungle outside Puerta Vallarta, Mexico, for two days, waiting for Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant him an interview for United Media. The former California governor at the time was a major box-office star. The actor was shooting Predator (1987) when Sanello showed up on the jungle set [in 1986] to conduct the agreed-upon interview [agreed upon by the movie studio, not by Schwarzenegger, although he eventually agreed. If he hadn't, the studio would not have paid my airfare and put me up at the same allegedly luxury hotel, Casa de Oro, the cast and crew stayed at. The Wiki article about Predator [(1987)] notes that everyone on the set got diahhrea because the "luxury" hotel had "sewage problems." I was on of the people on the set with a bad case of the turistas. A torrential downpour turned the day’s shooting into a disaster, and Schwarzenegger was too distracted to be interviewed. Sanello camped out on the set in the jungle for two days until the rain stopped, and Schwarzenegger spoke with him." The above passage is probably why the ! note at the top of my profile says "This article possibly contains original research. (October 2011) The information appearin in a column I wrote for United Media, which Wiki references in my profile and confirms I wrote for them. Unfortunately, United Media hasn't archived the article/interview I did with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the jungle outside Puerta Vallarta that would serve as a primary or second source, I think. How do I or you, preferably, provide authentication for my interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger?
without someone independently commenting on the importance of this that we can refer to, I don't think this anecdote is suitable for inclusion. --nonsenseferret00:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is more "original research" that you probably won't allow because it may be "unduly self-serving" per Wiki's BLP guidelines...makes me sound like an egomaniac: "Schwarzenegger wouldn't grant me an agreed-upon interview because it was raining in the jungle just outside Puerto Vallarta in and he was distracted by the problems caused by the downpour. When the sun finally came out, everyone on the jungle "set" took off his/her studio-issued panchos (raincoats). As soon as I took my pancho off, Schwarzenegger, who had been avoiding me for two days while the movie's unit publicist begged him to talk to me, yelled from about 10 yards away, "Now there's a man who works out!" I was a non-competitive bodybuilder at the time, and that's probably why Schwarzenegger did the following: Whereupon, he walked over to me, I pulled out my taperecorder, and we talked for about an hour while the camera crew set up lights, etc. I got my interview and flew back to California the next day. That story is definitely original research because I didn't put the incident in the article about Schwarzenegger I wrote for United Media because UM did not accept "first person" journalism. UM reporters/syndicated columnists like me were not allowed to refer to ourselves in an article or column. I think my column was called "In Hollywood." I last wrote for UM almost 20 years, and I don't remember much about my two decades-long work for them because I was freelancing for many other outlets, including the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, NY Times Syndicate...all of which my Wiki profile cites. I can create a secondary (?) source citation by posting the incident about Schwarzenegger and me on RedRoom.com, http://redroom.com/ a site for published authors. Some of Red Room's contributors/members are Salman Rushdie, Maya Angelou...and me. :) Is Red Room considered a reputable source? It's not an org but they don't pay writers for articles, short stories, etc. I write for Red Room because they don't censor my articles with bots, and they let me write anything I want within reason. If I write an article for Red Room about why Schwarzenegger granted me an interview, can I use the article's URL as a citation in my Wiki profile? Or is that in violation of NPOV and BLP? Is Red Room a reputable, citable source? I can't tell from Wiki's guidelines about what types of sources are legitimate (.orgs, for example) and which are not (obviously Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn).
Another issue is an opinion lacking citation in my Wiki profile. However, I can provide a reliable, published history of China that authenticates the following opinion in my profile: "Sanello’s nonfiction books have been distributed internationally. Most prominent of those works is The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of Another (Sourcebooks, 2002).[5] The Opium Wars' publication in China was unusual in that Chinese scholars and government watchdogs typically reject Western accounts of their history as biased and Eurocentric. The book attempted to offer a more balanced account of the two conflicts fought between Britain and China in the mid-19th century. The term "unusual" above sounds like an opinion to me, but here's a published source that proves the statement is not an opinion:
Are Western Historians biased? on CHINADAILYFORUM bbs.chinadaily.com.cn or http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-553884-1-1.html
Can you insert the authentication provided by CHINADAILYFORUM http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-553884-1-1.html of the "unusual" claim in my Wiki profile? I don't want to violate Wiki's NPOV policy by inserting the citation myself. I'm afraid Wiki will challenge my profile and delete it if I edit the profile myself.
Please let me know your thoughts about this.
Frank, a forum is not a reliable source that we could use to support this statement please provide something from a published source if you can --nonsenseferret21:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to expand the external links at the bottom of my Wiki profile. Right now, Wiki only lists Sanello, Frank (January 6, 1989). "Is Tv Trivializing The Holocaust?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 30 January, 2013.
That is only one of 97 articles I wrote for the Chicago Tribune. I can supply you with external links to other, better articles I wrote for the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Orlando Sentinel (I wrote an article about a press conference held on the soundstage of Star Trek on Paramount Studios' backlot for the Chicago Tribune, which sold it to the Orlando Sentinel...without paying me an additional fee. :(
Here is a link to all my Chicago Trib articles. Chicago Tribune Archives, articles by Frank Sanello. Am I being pushy when I ask you to include this link instead of just the link to my article in the Chicago Trib, "Is TV Trivializing the Holocaust?" http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24518849.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+6%2C+1989&author=Frank+Sanello.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition=&startpage=1&desc=Is+TV+trivializing+the+Holocaust%3F
Some Wikipedian kindly inserted this information about my books, which is why I'm obsessed with the questionable usage and style in my Wiki profile: "...OpenLibrary.org: "Reel v. real - how Hollywood turns fact into fiction" (http://openlibrary.org/books/OL3944623M/Reel_v._real), (WorldCat link (http://www.worldcat.org/title/reel-v-real-how-holywod-turns-fact-into-fiction/oclc/488435063)), which notes that his Reel v. Real is part of the library collections of Yale, Harvard and Temple Universities. The MLA (Modern Language Association) APA (American Psychological Association), Turabian and the Chicago Manual of Style have cited his work."
An editor said that Keri is doing a major rehaul of my profile. I'm just curious, folks. Why does my profile need a major rehaul? I tried to fix the formatting errors and add citations. I'm still trying to find the passage in a published book that proves the opinion that remains in my Wiki profile that Western historians are typically prejudiced against Western accounts of their own history.
Some kind Wikipedian added the opinion "it was unusual that The Opium Wars was published in China" for the reasons I'm desperately seeking to find a citation to prove the opinion is published in a book.
Even so, no one ever put a "citation needed" next to the opinion that it was unusual for my book to be published in China.
I just wanted to add one to improve the citations in my Wiki bio. Then, when I logged on for the first time since 2011 when I gave up trying to edit the glaring typos that at that top of my bio said "may have spelling and grammar errors"!!!. I found your software much improved for computer illiterates like me. As soon as I find the published book quote, I'll let Keri know. I read the "opinion" a while back and wish I had highlighted the passage. I'm having trouble. As you can tell, Keri, I'm a bit anal-retentive. OK, a lot.
I've asked friends to edit my bio per my instructions, but they messed up and inserted unformatted links and outrageously flattering comments. I deleted that flattery from my Wiki profile recently to maintain NPOV (another Orwellian acronym and allegations of "autobiography."
I only want to do to what Keri calls "minor tweaking": fixing grammar, formatting, etc., adding citations, when I can find them. :(
I taught English composition at the University of Phoenix and elsewhere so I was horrified to see that note about grammar errors, etc.
But I couldn't log on to fix the formatting, grammatical and alleged spelling errors" in my Wiki profile.
What does your statement at the top of the Frank Sanello article mean?This article or section is in the process of an expansion??? or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template.
Nonsense, what in particular does "remove this template" mean? Delete the entire article?
Ythis template simply means that a major edit of the article is under way. Keri added this template to the article to let people know she was in the middle of working on the article as a courtesy, it does not mean that the article is any danger of deletion --nonsenseferret21:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Metaphor of the year (mixed category)" was quoted from Sanello's biography of Sharon Stone: "Stone's behaviour is motivated by the fear that the career heap that she has clawed her way to the top of will suddenly supernova." [1]
Does this nasty "award" accusing me of mixing metaphors (top and supernova) really add something "substantial" to the article on Frank Sanello?
In another edit, nonsenseferret says that the fact that various style manuals like MLA, Turabian, Chicago and APA "don't add anything substantial" to the article. I suppose this "award" is substantial???
The same comment was made in the Publishers Weekly review of that book [2] - I'm happy to let other uninvolved editors to make a call on whether or not they think it is something that should be reflected in the article. --nonsenseferret02:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What comment? I'm talking about the The Post's nasty award giving me worst mixed metaphor category. The Post is a canadian paper with a circulation of 142,000, hardly an important media outlet. I feel as tho I'm being harassed. Why is Turabian, American Psychological Association, MLA citing my works as example of good style "unsubstantial," nonsenseferret, while the harry porlock award appeared in a Canadian paper, The Post, with a circulation of only 142,000?
Are you the arbiter of what's substantial and what's fluff, nonsense?
NOT the same comment in Publishers Weekly review, nonsense. This is the overstated criticism in Publisher's Weekly. Only ONE mixed metaphor in entire book the reviewer cited, yet she says the book is filled with mixed metaphors. Find another, nonsense. You can buy the book used on Amazon for one penny...plus S&H :)
Some of Santello's witticisms have a vulgar brio, as when Santello writes that Stone was "Pudenda non grata" in Hollywood after her 1990 Playboy pictorial. But much of the prose labors for effect, leading to such jaw-dropping mixed metaphorSBold text as, "Stone's behavior is motivated by the fear that the career heap that she has clawed her way to the top of will suddenly supernova." The subject matter and approach are likely to appeal to tabloid readers and fans of daytime talk shows, but chances are, if they've read the right magazines, they'll know most of this stuff already.
The above quote is from Publishers Weekly. The reviewer used the plural "jaw-dropping mixed metaphorS as..." then only quoted one. MLA, Turabian, APA, Chicago Style manuals, which you consider "unsubstantial" [sic - INsubstantial, nonsense. I was a college english professor!. begs to differ. Besides teaching "bonehead" English at the University of Phoenix (briefly, and I don't have a link to prove it. But I do have a posted review of my job performance by my "mentor" at Phoenix. My mother couldn't have written a nicer job review. Wanna see it? I saved it 10 years ago!
Even so, Publisher's Weekly is not the same as The Post, a tiny canadian paper with circulation 142,000, gave me the Harry Porlock Award for worst mixed metaphor of the year." So what? Does that mean Turabian, MLA style guides are wrong about me and an obscure Canadian rag is right?
Publishers Weekly exaggerated the case, implying my book is FILLED with mixed metaphors, but the reviewer only mentioned one. As a former reporter for the NY Times Syndicate, Chicago Tribune, freelancer for Washington Post, I think I am more "notable" than some hack who writes for a trade paper like Publishers Weekly, not exactly the Bible of style and polished prose. :)
I've written 19 books. I think I should be allowed ONE mixed metaphor at the age of 61 and 40 years as an author/journalist/columnist/film critic, no? :)
It was reported in The Times that a nurse Janice Payne filed a defamation law suit for $10,000 against Sanello over the Sharon Stone biography which quotes an observer who reports having "saw the women fondling in the ladies' room of the Beverly Hills Hotel." Payne admitted she met Stone in that location, but according to the Times claimed "the meeting was to discuss a film about her life". [2] Further details were published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal including the fact that Sanello was warned by New York attorney Daniel Kummer in January 1997 regarding the Stone biography that Payne "should remain unnamed, just to reduce the probability of litigation, should she be so inclined" [3] The Evening Standard quotes Payne's lawyer, Robert Graham, as saying "Stone strongly encouraged us to file this lawsuit".[4]
Question: Can we find a source to show what the outcome of this suit was?
do your own research! Everytime I try to correct misinformation in my wiki bio, some editor jumps on me. Check out the Las Vegas Sun-Journal, circa 1999, for the outcome of the Payne suit. (hint, she settled for the cost of her legal fees, no damages, after I wrote in my Sharon Stone bio that she and Stone were having sex in a stall at the Beverly Hills Hotel when my "unnamed" source per a nasty article implying I made the source up stumbled on Stone and Jayne Payne hiding in a stall.
In her lawsuit, Payne conceded that she was in the restroom with Stone, but "only to discuss a movie" based on Payne's life as a helicopter rescue paramedic.
THAT's why Payne claimed they were disucssing in the CLOSED toilet stall, per my book. When my unnamed source (unnamed not because she was made up because anonymity was a condition for granting me an interview.
Payne recognized my source from their conversation at the charity fundraiser and sued my source too. Then my source blamed me for revealing her name, which I hadn't, and sued ME! My source also settled for her $10K legal fees. As usual, the settlement couldn't be disclosed per the agreement because it would have shown both lawsuits were frivolous because the plaintiffs settled for legal fees only.
BTW, Geena Davis settled her $3 mil publicity stunt/libel suit for $1 (that's right, ONE buck), but made me sign the standard nondisclosure settlement clause saying I had to pay her $50,000 if I disclosed the settlement amount so her suit wouldn't be revealed as the frivolous, nuisance suit it was.
I have the non-discloure clause and the signed settlement, but I'm sure that won't satisfy WikiNazis. Want me to email you the nondisclosure clause/settlement on a legal document signed by that rhymes with rich and me to prove it? She'll sue me for $50 K, but I don't have the bread!
Jayne Payne admitted she was secluded in a private stall in the ladies room of the Beverly Hills Hotel, but insisted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal that she and Stone were only discussing a movie based on Payne's life as a helicopter rescue paramedic.
Who takes a "story meeting" in a public restroom stall?
The outcome of the lawsuit, my attorney, Robert Lent, or the publisher's attorney, James Murphy, will attest to was she dropped the lawsuit in return for AIG, the publisher of my Stone bio's libel insurance carrier, paid her legal bills, amounting to $10,000.
Those settlements usually have a non-disclosure clause so the plaintiffs who settle for $1 (Geena Davis and me) or for their legal expenses aren't embarrassed by admitting they settled so cheaply...and implicitly that the lawsuit was frivolous, nuisance, harassment because why would a "damaged" plaintiff like Geena Davis settle her lawsuit with me for $1. I also signed a non-disclosure agreement when I settled for the reasons above. So it wouldn't be revealed that Davis wasn't serious about recovering damages. She just wanted to embarrass me.
As for "Further details were published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal including the fact that Sanello was warned by New York attorney Daniel Kummer in January 1997 regarding the Stone biography that Payne "should remain unnamed, just to reduce the probability of litigation, should she be so inclined"
Guess what? NY attorney Daniel Kummer was hired by the publisher of Naked Instinct to vet the ms. prior to publication. He not only recommended leaving Payne unnamed, he also recommended removing the passage about Sharon Stone's sex life from the ms.
The Las Vegas-Journal sleazily failed to identify that Kummer was working for my publisher, vetting my ms., not some outside person giving me a dire warning. I wasn't warned. My editor was. In fact, Kummer, the vetting attorney asked me to prove many salacious items in my Sharon Stone bio prior to publication.
FrankSanello (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)FrankSanello[reply]
He was impressed that within 24 hours I supplied him with taped interviews, magazine articles, etc., proving everyone of the outrageous passages was true, including the Jayne Payne story and the Stone using her law firm's client list to make "friends" with them.
Kummer accepted all my proof but warned my editor to remove the Payne and Skyrzniarz stories just to be safe.
My editor was a drug addict and ignored the attorney's advice. I had no say over what was deleted from the ms. The editor did. And he was too impaired to remove the libellous passages!
Those are the results of the lawsuits above, but because of the non-disclosure agreement re: settlement I signed with Geena Davis and Jayne Payne signed with AIG, my publisher's libel insurance carrier, we are forbidden from disclosing the dollar amounts of the settlement. If we disclose them, we have to pay $50,000. Standard poison pill amount. You can Google that info to prove the $50K figure, but I'm not going to.
I have no assets to seize (I'm terminally ill with fourth stage kidney failure and very, very cranky, and don't need my bio parsed), so whenever anybody asks me about the Geena Davis settlement, I tell them she went away for a buck. Absolutely true. I have the settlement agreement, but it hasn't been published. LOL. Wanna see it? They prove all of the above!
In fact, some journalist, I think it was Catherine Seipp on Salon.com, quoted me in an article revealing the $1 (that's one dollar) settlement to prove Geena Davis' lawsuit was frivolous and she hadn't been injured and wanted compensation for her alleged injury, which was my quoting her as saying she wanted to have a baby!
Even if she hadn't said that, it's not libellous. I only settled because I couldn't afford an attorney...but I could afford a buck. :)
Time magazine in its People column wrote an item about the present trend (in 1997) of divas and lawsuits.
The item said, "One writer is being sued by Geena Davis for claiming she told him she wanted to have a baby! How horrible!" That's not a direct quote, but I'm sure nonsenseferret can find it on Nexis/Lexis.
The People item in Time ran sometime in 1997 or 1998, around the time Geena Davis sued me. Time was obviously making fun of her overreaction.
In 1993, a number of newspapers reported that Geena Davis had settled a lawsuit that claimed Sanello had invented quotes in a profile of her, written for Woman's World magazine under the pseudonum Daniel Deronda.[5][6] The The The Palm Beach Post wrote "Terms of last week's settlement with Frank Sanello were not disclosed. 'Both sides are pleased with the settlement and I now hope to get back to work now that this nightmare is over,' said Sanello. The 36-year- old actress sued for $5 million for invasion of privacy after Sanello's article appeared in the December issue of Woman's World magazine. The story, titled "Geena Davis -- I Want to Have a Baby," discussed her relationship with Hollywood security consultant Gavin de Becker." [5][7]
The Nottingham Evening Post writes "while paying tribute to the actress, the book doesn't delve deeply enough into the darker aspects of her life or give the reader any critical insight into the star's films... The book is a must read for all fans but is ultimately just like one of her movies - brain candy." [8]
The National Post wrote "The Opium Wars presents us with not a single new insight or revelation about an already well-documented and much analyzed historical low point in East- West relations....Right now, the West is watching nervously as China continues its extraordinary experiment in marrying "free enterprise" to an authoritarian governing structure. We want to know more about this intriguing place and we want to know about it now. The good news is that there are authors and publishers to feed our curiosity. The bad news is that some of them merely offer the kind of cross-cultural jokes that litter The Opium Wars and make it less reliable than a leaky junk." [9]
In 2003 the Daily Echo review wrote "Halle -whose mum was from Liverpool -has had an unrelenting struggle to be taken seriously. In this, the only full-length biography of Halle, Sanello offers a careful analysis of her work,as well as taking a look at the highs and lows of her personal life, the people and events that spurred her on and made her all the more determined to succeed... Complete with photographs of Halle's early career, this is a fascinating look at one of the most popular film stars of our time." [10]
The Daily Post (North Wales) described the biography as "fascinating" - writing that Sanello's 'fascination lies in the psychology of a woman who ran from one disastrous relationship to another. His disappointment in not analysing her personality in person is plain. "One of the frustrating things about being a celebrity biographer is that the people I write about always refuse to grant me interviews,"he laments,adding defensively: "Not because they fear I'm going to write vicious stuff about them but because famous actors are all saving their best anecdotes for their own autobiographies, for which they typically receive a seven-figure advance.' [11]
References
^Porlock, Harvey (28 December 1997). "Harvey Porlock's 1997 literary awards". The Sunday Times. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^Whittell, Giles (31 January 1998). "L.A. Stories". The Times. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^Morgan, Gary (22 January 1998). "Sharon Stone was not chatting me up, claims nurse". Evening Standard. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^ abSmith, Jeff (5 April 1993). "Davis Settles Journalist Suit". The Palm Beach Post. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^Thomas, Karen (10 March 1993). "Geena Davis files suit against writer". USA Today. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^Fraser, John (11 January 2003). "Long before Columbus: It was full steam ahead for two books on China -- torpedoes, and readers, be damned". National Post. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Here's the court document that proves Steve Schragis, head of Carol Publishing, which published my Sharon Stone bio, did not settle out of court and leave "Sanella" to defend himself. This document shows Robert Lent defended me, and James Murphy defended the publisher, Carol and its chief, Steve Schragis against Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman...and we won! Schragis did not settle out of court!
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WEST DISTRICT
ROSENFELD, MEYER & SUSMAN, LLP and WILLIAM SKRZYNIARZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CAROL PUBLISHING GROUP, FRANK SANELLO and DOES 1 - 10,
Defendants.
Case No.: SC048183
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS
This action came on regularly for trial by jury on August 30, 1999, with plaintiff Rosenfeld, Meyer and Susman, LLP, and William Skrzyniarz appearing in person and by Anthony Michael Glassman of Glassman, Browning & Saltsman, and Robert Thau and Alexander Rufus-Isaacs of Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, their attorneys; with defendants Carol Communications, Inc., Carol Publishing Group, and Carol Publishing Group, Inc., appearing in person and by James A. Murphy of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, their attorney; and defendant Frank Sanello, appearing in person and by Robert J. Lent of Kirsch & Mitchell, his attorney; a jury of twelve persons was duly impaneled and sworn; witnesses testified; and after being duly instructed by the court, the jury deliberated and thereon duly returned the following Special Verdict:
“We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the following Special Verdict on the questions submitted to us:
Question no. 1:
Did William Skrzyniarz make the statement attributed to him in Naked Instinct: The Unauthorized Biography of Sharon Stone?
Yes: 9 No: 3
If your answer to Question no. 1 is “yes”, sign and date this form. If your responses to Question No. 1 is “no”, proceed to the next question.”
Date: September 27, 1999
/s/ Cliff Schleutter____________
JURY FOREPERSON
It appearing that by reason of the Special Verdict, the defendants are entitled to Judgment against plaintiffs;
NOW, THEREFOR, IT IS ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED, that plaintiffs take nothing by way of their complaint from defendants, and that defendants have and recover from plaintiffs, costs of suit incurred herein.
DATED:
By
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Anthony Michael Glassman
JAM.10007303.doc
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Karin S. Cooke/Catherine A. Seymour, declare:
I am a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 94108-5530.
On July 9, 2013, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action:
BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail. The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California on this date, addressed as follows:
Robert H. Thau, Esq.
Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman
9601 Wilshire Boulevard, 4th Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Attorney For
Tony Glassman
Glassman, Browning & Saltsman
360 North Bedford Drive, Suite 204
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-517 Attorney For
Robert Lent
Kirsch & Mitchell
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2750
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attorney For
BY HAND: The above-described document(s) will be placed in a sealed envelope which will be hand-delivered on this same date by SILVER BULLET MESSENGER SERVICE, addressed as follows:
VIA FACSIMILE: The above-described document(s) will be transmitted via facsimile, and a copy of same will be mailed, on this same date to the following:
VIA OVERNIGHT SERVICE: The above-described document(s) will be delivered by United Parcel Service overnight service, to the following:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on July 9, 2013.
By
Karin S. Cooke/Catherine A. Seymour
Nonsenseferret claims Carol's publisher, Steve Schragis, settled out court and "left Sanella to defend himself." Not true. Nonsenseferret based his claim on an outdated NY Post article that erroneously mentioned that Schragis had settled. The truth is Schragis wanted to settle but the plaintiffs, Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman refused to settle.
A later article in the LA Times by Ann W. O'Neill "Law Firm Is Loser in Stone Bio Flap." (10 October 1999) proves I won the case, contradicting the NY Post earlier story that the publisher settled. He did not.
Also, nonsenseferret, when he edited the article on Frank Sanello (me) misspelled my name twice, as SanellA. When I edited the article and corrected the misspelling, he changed it back to SanellA.
Nonsenseferret also removed all the external links but one from the Frank Sanello article's external links!
Below is nonsenseferret's editing that misspelled my name twice!
After Carol Publishing settled out of court for a nominal sum and a letter of apology, Sanella was left to defend himself.[9] The head of the publishing firm Steve Schragis was quoted in the New York Post, saying "I don't want to pay enormous legal fees if the case can just go away...It's just economics."[9]
The jury in Sanella's case disagreed that there had been any defamation or economic damage caused.[10]
This is what I've already typed into Nonsense's TALK page:
Dear Nonsenseferret,
We spoke in the HELP room on Sunday, I think. Boy were you right about not editing my own article. I've asked friends to do it but they can't figure out Wiki's difficult software. They're all old, like me :(
My name in the current article about Frank Sanello (me) misspells my last name twice as Sanella. (with an a, not an o at the end. I fixed that yesterday before you edited the page, and Sanella reappeared in the Frank SanellO article.
That's the least of my problems!
When I said that to nonsenseferret in the HELP chat room, he dismissed the mistake even though he reinserted my misspelled name after I corrected it.
Some Wikipedian kindly inserted this information about my books, which is why I'm obsessed with the questionable usage and style in my Wiki profile: "...OpenLibrary.org: "Reel v. real - how Hollywood turns fact into fiction" (http://openlibrary.org/books/OL3944623M/Reel_v._real), (WorldCat link (http://www.worldcat.org/title/reel-v-real-how-holywod-turns-fact-into-fiction/oclc/488435063)), which notes that his Reel v. Real is part of the library collections of Yale, Harvard and Temple Universities. The MLA (Modern Language Association) APA (American Psychological Association), Turabian and the Chicago Manual of Style have cited his work."
Not done:I don't see that this adds anything substantial to the article. --nonsense ferret 23:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
"Not done!" Does that mean nonseferret deleted the MLA, APA, Turabian info as irrelevant?
Why does nonsenseferret get to determine if the above mention of my writing quoted in style manuals doesn't "add anything substantial to the article"? That's a judgement call. Obviously an earlier Wiki editor decided that the info did "add" something "substantial to the article!"
Whoever put the reference in originally didn't think it irrelevant!
BTW, in 2011 there was some question about my being notable enough to have my own Wiki article. So someone inserted more info, like the fact that Wiki quotes/footnotes my books in its own articles on subjects I've written books about, like The Opium Wars and The Knights Templars. Wikipedia quotes my books all over the place, not just on Frank Sanello's article?!?!
Thank god nonsenseferret didn't remove this passage in the Frank Sanello article on Wikipedia. Nonsenseferret made a judgement call saying the following passage in the article doesn't add anything "substantial" to the article. Says who?: I also tried to italicize frei kultur because foreign words are supposed to be capitalized. After I italicized frei kultur numerous times, someone removed the italics!
An advocate of frei kultur or free access to information, the author has donated his early books to OpenLibrary.org: "Reel v. real - how Hollywood turns fact into fiction", (WorldCat link), which notes that his Reel v. Real is part of the library collections of Yale, Harvard and Temple Universities. The MLA (Modern Language Association) APA (American Psychological Association), Turabian and the Chicago Manual of Style have cited his work. Sanello has registered with Project Gutenberg in order to submit his books to that free-access site as well. Before its publication in 2012, Sanello's novel, The Autobiography of Frau Adolf Hitlter: Translated and edited by Frank Sanello, was serialized on the writers' site RedRoom.com. The historically detailed portrayal of the novel’s imaginary heroine, Adolf Hitler’s wife - (not Eva Braun) - prompted some readers of the serialized chapters to inquire if Frau Hitler were an actual historical figure they somehow missed in high school history class. [12]
My misspelled name "is resolved now" after I had to correct the misspelling twice after someone changed it back to the incorrect spelling, SanellA, Sanello's name ends in an "o"01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)FrankSanello (talk)
Name mispelling[edit]
I have added two references or external links to Frank Sanello's listing on Wikipedia. Please do not delete. My name was misspelled several times as SanellA, not SanellO. (Actually, SanellA, which is wrong. My last name is Sanello.
there are no mispellings in the article currently, I think this is resolved now --nonsense ferret 21:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
wanna bet, nonsense. This AM Hitler was misspelled several times on my page, so was "consequently" "the" was repeated consecutively as "the the" publisher, Steven Schragis...
Yes, resolved after someone messed up the spelling twice, and I had to change it back twice until the issue was "resolved now."
You could find nasty reviews for most of my 19 books. Before a certain editor became obsessed with my Wiki profile, you kind folks only posted nice reviews from major media outlets like Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and the scholarly journal, The East Asian Review, in which Wayne E. Yang said very kind things about "the authors of the Opium Wars," Travis Hanes and me.
I think those nice reviews remain in my Wiki bio, but I fear someone will delete them, someone who can't spell my last name...twice. :)
I feel I have antagonized you know and he's suggesting these humiliating new reviews to embarrass me because I criticized him for misspelling my last name twice. In the help room, when I mentioned that I had to restore the correct spelling after "someone" misspelled my name twice, then restored his/her misspelling twice, until I finally asked him about the matter in HELP.
He said defensively, "It's been taken care of, Frank." [Yes, by me, twice!] "It's not a big deal!"
My name misspelled on Wikipedia! Not a big deal.
I wrote an article for RedRoom headlined "Wikipedia: The Internet's Library of Alexandria," the ancient temple containing priceless artifacts and books with most of the known world's learning preserved.
That's how much I love Wikipedia. Despite the fact I'm on full disability and broke, I always give a generous donation to Wiki whenever they ask because Wikipedia has made my life and career as an author and journalist so much easier. I'm very grateful to Wiki for that invaluable research help which the pre-Internet era lacked and didn't exist in a central location, wherever Wiki's central location is. :)
Forgive me for rambling. I have a touch of dementia due to kidney failure, but it hasn't stopped me from writing. Alas, editing my Wiki bio HUGE mistake has kept me from the love my life, writing.
Somebody in 2011 added that I was in the Turabian, et al., style manuals in my Wiki profile.
I was flattered. I had never heard of Turabian. But The Chicago manual is published by alma mater, the University of Chicago. Another gift from my favorite neo-Orwellian universal brain, Wikipedia. (The "Orwellian" reference is an obscure insult. Did you get it?
I should let the alumni magazine know that its publication is citing me, an English major there. Whenever I sent them announcements to "books by alumni" page of the magazine, they'd either lose them or I'd have to resend to get an answer.
Someone said this very flattering mention of Turabian didn't add "anything substantial," a judgement call, especially in light of his suggesting we add nasty awards like "worst mixed metaphor" award for a whopper in my Sharon Stone bio:
This is what an editor wanted to add: I mixed top of the heap with supernova in a sentence. That won me the worst mixed metaphor award by a newspaper only identified as The Post???
What's more substantial? The Turabian accolade, which confers notability, I believe, or the fact I won an embarrasing literary award that contradicts the honor Turabian has done me by citing my style. One mixed metaphor in 19 books! Burn me at the stake!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
This page was nominated for deletion on 19 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
My 2011 Wiki article was filled with typos, incorrect grammar and punctuation and a prose style that suggests the creator of the article did not speak or write English as his/her primary language. That's why I edited it. I don't need to promote my career for two reasons: I'm retired...and I'm in the fourth stage of kidney failure...only one more stage to go and this painful, humiliating debate on Wiki's Talk pages will be over...for me.
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...
in 2011 the article on Frank Sanello (ME) was nominated for deletion. Decision: Keep.
Why this sudden witch hunt and purge? I've never, ever been called "insignificant" as an adult...except occasionally in bed :)
The editor who nominated the article about Frank Sanello (me) wrote,
"This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Note that this applies to an article about the person him/herself, not about his/her books, albums, shows, software, etc. See CSD A7.
almost all of the article on Frank Sanello (ME) in Wikipedia is about his (MY) career: my books, TV appearances, a journalist whose articles were syndicated to 500+ newspapers and magazines all over the world by [Media] and the New York Times Syndicate.
I survived and won a humiliating, headline-generating $31 million law suit, which may be personal stuff rather career-related, but I don't think so. If I had lost the libel suit, my CAREER would have been over...and we wouldn't be having this "Talk."
Please type the title or subject of any of my books into Wikipedia, and you will find them cited or externally-linked to Wikipedia articles.
Does frequent footnoting by Wikipedia confer notability on the footnoted subject of a Wiki article? :)
I usually don't brag, but I also don't want my bio deleted for an alleged lack of notability.
Wikipedia itself offers the best proof that my article shouldn't be deleted for lack of notability.
If you type the titles or topics of most of my books into Wikipedia, you will find them cited many times in Wiki articles on the subject.
For example, my non-fiction history, The Opium Wars, has two footnotes in Wiki's article on the subject:
19.^ Hanes III, W. Travis; Sanello, Frank (2002). The Opium Wars. Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc. p. 20.
20.^ Chisholm, Hugh (1911). The Encyclopædia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information. p. 130.
21.^ Salucci, Lapo (2007). Depths of Debt: Debt, Trade and Choices. University of Colorado.
22.^ Hanes, William Travis; Sanello, Frank (2004). The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of Another. Sourcebooks, Inc. p. 8. ISBN978-1-4022-0149-3.
23.^ Fu, Lo-shu (1966). A Documentary Chronicle of Sino-Western relations, Volume 1. p. 380.
My history of The Knights Templars is also cited by Wiki in its article on the subject:
90.^ Martin, p. 139.
91.^ Sanello, Frank (2003). The Knights Templars: God's Warriors, the Devil's Bankers. Taylor Trade Publishing. pp. 207–208. ISBN0-87833-302-9.
92.^ Barber, Trial of the Templars, 1978, p. 62.
Now back to the editor who nominated Frank Sanello for "speedy deletion":
If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page, and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message, explaining why you believe this article should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that once tagged with this notice, the page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient."
Note to administrators: this article has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion.
Someone else posted the above note implying, I think, that there should be some debate before the article is deleted, presumably because that kind soul disagrees with .
More notability and embarrassing self-promotion:
I'm the author of 19+ books, published all over the world, including my history of 19th century China's Opium Wars, which was published in China. I've lecture on the Holocaust at Temple Isaiah in March 2013 with fellow-lecturers Prof. Stanley Goldman, professor of law at Loyola, and Gregory B. Wallance [stet], Wall Street attorney and Holocaust author, like me (the latter credit; I'm not an attorney:)
I've also lectured on the entertainment industry at a social networking group of young Jewish professionals. A Different Light book store in West Hollywood, CA, invited me to do a book reading of my nonfiction work, Tweakers.
I've also lectured on the subject of methamphetamine abuse in the gay community because once you write a book, you're automatically considered an expert on the subject. That, of course, ain't true, but it's very flattering and great for meeting people who offer important networking contacts and who ask me to lecture on the topics I've written about in books, newspapers and magazines.
As my Wiki bio writes AND verifies, I've written for the NY Times Syndicate, the Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Globe, Pentouse, US and People Weeklies, UPI, Agence-France Presse, UK's Daily Mail, USA Today and Cosmopolitan, which excerpted my Steven Spielberg and Sharon Stone biographies.
I am a recognized Holocaust scholar who in March 2013 lectured on the U.S. State Department's Complicity in the Holocaust at Temple Isaiah in Palm Springs. The lecture/conference was sponsored by Steven Geiger's The Mensch International Foundation, "dedicated to keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive." I've already submitted the announcement of the lecture to Wiki and the Mensch International Foundation's web site.
Members of the congregation/audience included concentration camps survivors. A tough audience, but they applauded at the end. I don't expect you to put the applause in the article on Frank Sanello (me), but per Wiki's own guidelines, being an expert and giving lectures is one sign of notability. I've also lectured on methamphetamine abuse in the gay community about my book, Tweakers: How Crystal Meth Is Ravaging Gay AmericaTweakers: How Crystal Meth Is Ravaging Gay America.
Tweakers was also adapted as a feature-length documentary in 2007 and is available on DVD.[1]
My ranking on IMDbPRO.com is 265,000 with over 3 million hits on my IMDb's two pages, one as a screenwriter, the other as a Talking Head on a British documentary about plastic surgery horrors. I have many more TV credits but IMDb's software is even more difficult to navigate than Wikipedia's so I haven't bothered to update my IMDb profile with more credits.
nonsenseferret told me that IMDb is not a legitimate site, source or citation-worthy because it's "not edited and its listings can be falsified."
NOT true. I practically had to give IMDb.com's editors a urine sample to get them to change the credit on my movie, Tweakers, from Frank SanTello to Sanello. Some days I wish my name were Frank...Smith :)
I only "tweaked" the article on Frank Sanello (ME), which Keri, who said that was allowed and also promised to edit and reformat my page. She put that in writing on her Talk page, and I think mine as well. I hadn't planned to touch my bio on Wiki because I know it's against Wiki guidelines. But I had to edit the bio when I noticed my last name was misspelled...twice! I am NOT Frank SanellA.
The libel suit information in my bio was also wrong. The publisher of my biography of Sharon Stone did NOT settle out of court with her lawyers who sued me and the publisher for $30,000.000, as the NY Post erroneously reported in a pre-trial column that was corrected in a follow-up item after the verdict indicating that both the publisher and I had been acquitted of libel and tortious interference.
I did post the correction on my bio, which I confess is editing "content," but my career could be damaged by inaccurate information that implies the publisher didn't believe I had told the truth in my Sharon Stone bio and so he left me to twist and hang in the wind without legal representation. See nonsenseferret's insertion in the history of my page's revisions.
In fact, the publisher's libel insurance carrier, AIG, paid the publisher's fees and MY legal fees. I was not abandoned by the publisher, Carol, which went on to publish another bio of mine, Eddie Murphy: The Life and Times of a Comic on the Edge (Carol/Birchlane, 1998, even tho we were in the middle of the nightmarish lawsuit when the decision was made to publish my Eddie Murphy bio, even tho it contained far more fodder for litigation that my Stone bio did. However, as in the case of Naked Instinct, my biography of Murphy was vetted by a libel attorney, and Murphy never sued me.
nonsenseferret reinserted the info I deleted TWICE (and signed FrankSanello (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)FrankSanello) about the publisher settling with the plaintiffs. nonsense justified his inaccurate insertion by repeatedly referring during our chat at the HELP desk to an outdated, inaccurate item in the NY Post which the Post later corrected.[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Frank Sanello requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia.
more proof of "notability": Most of my published books are cited in Wikipedia articles on the same topics as my books'.
{{help me}} Please check out HighBeam, a fee-based search engine, which lists 38 articles BY and ABOUT me.
Are fee-based search engines within Wiki guidelines for External Links or Works accepted under Wiki submission guidelines? If so, here's the link to my pages on HighBeam, which further validate the info that was questioned by nonsenseferret and Mlpearc as lacking notability. http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=frank+sanello
The above recommendation to speedily delete the Frank Sanello (ME) article was unsigned! REVENT told me Mlpearc inserted the "speedily delete" recommendation. REVENT (Ray) told me when I became hysterical after reading Mlpaearc's recommendation to "speedily delete" the article on Frank Sanello (ME) that Mlpearc had changed his mind 30 seconds after I contacted REVENT. REVENT checked the note at the top of my bio, and the notice to speedily delete had already...been deleted!
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. FrankSanello (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not angry with nonsenseferret. In fact I'm grateful to him. He's given me invaluable tips and instructions on how to navigate Wikipedia's software which seems like something from the MS-DOS Age! Mlpearc's questioning my notability AFTER reading my works, TV appearances, book reviews, bibliography, etc., however, I am NOT grateful for :)
The LA Times and many other legit media outlets published accurate accounts of the pre-trial depositions, the 4-week trial and the jury's verdict that acquitted the defendants (ME and Steve Schragis, Carol's publisher) of all charges.
{{help me}}More notability: On Saturday I posted on my Talk Page and also contacted Revent/Ray L. the 38 articles by and/or about me on HighBeam, the fee-based search engine. Some of the articles will confirm that I am not "insignicant" if some kind Wikipedian inserts the results of typing "Frank Sanello" into HighBeam's search box, then uses the results as external links on my Wiki page.
Instead of lack of notability, I think the "subtext" as they say in the theater is the presumption that I've violated Wiki's NPOV guidelines, which says the subject of an article on Wikipedia may "subconsciously" write self-promotional information for his/her page.
Freud invented the term "subconscious," and as my philosopher professor said dismissively when I quoted Freud to prove some obscure point, the professor said, "There is no empirical proof that supports any of Freud's theories." That would include the subconscious, which despite the term's lack of "verifiable proof," per Wiki Guidelines, does not exist and does not explain "innocent" edits or tweaks by the subject of the article.
Blatant self-promotion/"autobiography" can be proven empirically, but neither of those charges have been made by Mlpearc!
I'm also a contributing "author" to RedRoom.com, which nonsenseferret says is not a legit media outlet. To become a contributing "author" as opposed to a "member" of RedRoom, you not only have to have published books, you have to submit a writing sample to "audition" for membership. Other "notable" authors who contribute to Red Room are Salman (The Satanic Verses) Rushdie and Maya Angelou among many other very notable writers.
I write books. My alleged verbosity is referred to by various editors of my 19+ books listed on Amazon and OpenLibrary.org as "thoroughness," "in-depth," "inclusive," and NOT verbose or discursive.
"Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered."
This new section has been posted in response to Mlpearc's recommendation that [Wiki article] should be "speedily deleted" for lack of "notability." Per Wiki's notability guidelines, I was determined to be notable and the decision was KEEP. The gentleman who said I should be deleted may have missed Bondeas' notification in 2011 that the Frank Sanello article lacked notability. In 2011 the decision was made to KEEP. Apparently Mlpearc didn't review the revision history for the Frank Sanello article.
Hello, Frank. I've deactivated the two {{helpme}} templates you've added, as this is not an appropriate use of them. You should use the template when you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia, not to try to attract attention to messages you're leaving here.
13:27] == #wikipedia-en-help Cannot join channel (+b) - you are banned
A few days ago, I was in == #wikipedia-en-help, and PROTOSPAM, after insulting me repeatedly, determined that my questions were not "helpful" or "relevant" after I asked him for the location of more appropriate Wikichatrooms where editors/contributor can go to discuss general issues re: Wikipedia, not technical support which == #wikipedia-en-help is devoted to. I did not know that at the time.
Since then, PROTOSPAM has permanently banned me from entering the help chat room on Wikipedia
{{help me}}
How long will this ban last? Is it permanent? If so, how am I supposed to get "HELP"? I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm sure I ask a lot of dumb questions. I don't want to violate Wiki guidelines, but there are so many of them I make mistakes all the time.
There are a lot of authoritarian types in the help room and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mlpearc and nonsenseferret both questioned my notability AFTER my Wiki profile was nominated for deletion in 2011 by bondeas and AFTER Wiki's decision: KEEP.
It's humiliating to have to prove one's notability...twice! After the 2011 recommendation to delete, I added more info that supported inclusion of http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Frank_Sanello. I believe that led to the KEEP recommendation.
Why have Wiki editors questioned my notability TWO years after I was declared "notable," which is never temporary, per Wiki's notability guidelines.
Thank you all very much.
Sincerely,
FrankSanello (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)FrankSanello
FrankSanello (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)FrankSanello[reply]
Hi Frank. I've removed the ban, which was set because you were being disruptive to others in the channel, and then harassing the channel operators. #wikipedia-en-help is for asking questions only, not for socializing. If you are ever unable to access the channel again, I should point out that there plenty of other places to get help. You've clearly figured out the {{helpme}} templates, and there is an on-wiki help desk. – GorillaWarfare(talk)21:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under the heading Libel suitn at attorney William Skrzyniarz' last name is misspelled without a "y" [1]
other typos I make myself all the time even tho I get paid to copy edit mss. written by others.
For some reason, many people, including me, accidentally repeat the same word consecutively:
Please fix:
consquently [sic]
"the jury ruled in favor of the THE [sic] publisher..."
libelled = British spelling
libeled = American spelling
Wiki's editor used the British spelling. Is that kosher? In the British editions of my books, the publisher used "unauthoriSed biography" instead of American "unauthoriZed biography."
Please fix unless Wiki accepts British spelling.
"England and America are two countries separated by a common language." -- G.B. Shaw [2]
Hitler is misspelled in Works and references as The Autobiography of Frau Adolf Hitlter: Translated and edited by Frank Sanello. Hitler's name is misspelled several but not all the time.
This is very anal-retentive and unimportant. I'm embarrassed to mention this, in fact, but I know Wikipedia is a stickler for formatting and facts.
The correct capitalization of my book is Reel V. Real, not Reel v. Real as listed in Works. (Please use a capital "V." in Reel V. Real [3]
BTW, your OpenLibrary.org also uses a lower-case V in Reel V. Real, if you're interested. I'm not -- only about Wikipedia.
[4]
"An advocate of frei kultur or free access to information, the author has donated his early books to OpenLibrary.org, which notes that his Reel v. Real is part of the library collections of Yale, Harvard and Temple Universities. The MLA (Modern Language Association), APA (American Psychological Association), Turabian and the Chicago Manual of Style have cited his work. Sanello has registered with Project Gutenberg in order to submit his books to that free-access site as well."
nonsenseferret was correct in saying the MLA/APA/Turabian citations were "insubstantial." All those style manuals do is pre-format bibliography and footnotes in all books submitted to them by OpenLibrary. Please remove this unimportant info from : The MLA (Modern Language Association), APA (American Psychological Association), Turabian and the Chicago Manual of Style have cited his work.
Editing my Wiki bio has been a huge education for which this 61-year-old computer-challenged man is very grateful to Wikipedia for forcing me to learn software code (?) or whatever.
While I was patrolling my own page, I learned I was listed here:
The first reference in my bio refers to my age??? and cited by a site I'd never heard of: ^ "Frank Sanello". OpenISBN. Retrieved 15 July 2013. [5]
Openisbn lists all my 19+ books (and punctuates Reel V. Real correctly :) but the site, like OpenLibrary.org has incomplete info about my books, especially OpenLibrary. When I have time between my own books (right now I'm Kindlizing my screenplay about Eugene Bullard, the first African-American military aviator (World War I), I'll update all my books on OpenLibray and OpenISBN. Thanks again, Wipedia, for promoting my career! LOL
Wiki already has an article about Bullard.[6] After the Kindle and CreateSpace (paperback) editions of my screenplay about Bullard, All Blood Runs Red, I will cite the hell out of it on Wiki's Bullard article to promote the sale of my paperback screenplay because Wiki always displays first in most searches. I'll include Wiki's Bullard article's URL with my book cited in an updated edition of my Bullard bio which can be easily updated on Kindle or CreateSpace with a few key strokes. :)
BTW, I'm amazed Wiki accepts books published by CreateSpace, that is, self-published paperbacks, as Works, References and External Links.
Does Wiki also accept Kindle only books? I always paperback (neologism,[7] I know) and Kindle my books at the same time because formatting for both book types is nearly identical.
Sorry to be verbose!
I would have made these formatting changes that don't involve content myself but GorillaWarfare, nonsenseferret, Mlpearc and REVENT have all scolded me for doing so in the past, such as when someone who shall remain anonymous spelled my last name SanellA twice! I changed it back twice, and he undid my undo until I contacted him directly, and he became defensive about the error. EVERYBODY misspells my name, including my TV appearances when my name appears below ME.
Reading this article Talk Page is an education on what can happen when Wikipedia editors try to work with the subject of the article. I'm sorry if this comment isn't "constructive", it's just interesting to try to follow the dialog back-and-forth between FrankSanello and the Wiki editors, and then see the resulting article. I guess I will be civil and keep my remaining thoughts to myself! NewJerseyLizLet's Talk18:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there are no mispellings in the article currently, I think this is resolved now --nonsense ferret 21:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done:I don't see that this adds anything substantial to the article. --nonsense ferret 23:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Question: Can we find a source to show what the outcome of this suit was?
