Talk:J. G. Sandom

Clean up

I am removing the following to the talk page:

peacock info/unreferenced

J. G. Sandom, often referred to as the "Father of Interactive (Internet) Advertising," co-founded the world’s first interactive advertising agency, Einstein and Sandom Interactive (EASI), in 1984,

Sandom built the executive team, purchased equity stakes in off-shore Web production company Critical Mass (Calgary, Canada) and email marketing company Innovyx (Seattle), productized cyber-analytics and e-Care (digital call center) offerings, recruited the first clients, and managed the business until it was on its feet. He was responsible for executive management of the company, and its growth to more than $40MM in revenues in the U.S., with 300+ employees worldwide, and offices throughout North America, Europe and Latin America -- at a time of industry contraction. RappDigital Network clients included SBC Communications, Mercedes-Benz, Philips Consumer Electronics, Pfizer, Exelon, Kaiser Permanente and Reuters, among others.

author review of book

Scott Turow, author of Presumed Innocent and Ordinary Heroes, called , "A gripping story, well-told...not only a tale of murder and betrayal, but an intelligent exploration of issues of male identity

Unreferenced material

In 1984, Sandom co-founded Einstein and Sandom Interactive (EASI), the nation's first interactive advertising agency.

==Early life==

Born in Chicago, the youngest of three children, of a Danish immigrant mother (Else Hvingtoft) and father of Lithuanian ancestry (Zane Joseph Sandom), J.G. Sandom moved to Weybridge, England, at nine months. Zane Sandom worked for American Express, and the family was transferred to France, where the author first began attending school at St. Martin's, in the town of Jouy-en-Josas, near Versailles. Less than two years later, Sandom moved to Rome, Italy, where he attended St. George’s English School during the next four years. While in Italy, Sandom performed on the legitimate stage at the Goldoni theatre as a mouse in the English pantomime Cinderella, and in a full-length motion picture produced by Dino De Laurentiis, starring Walter Chiari, called Il Giovedi.

Sandom then moved to San Rafael, California, where he attended the 3-Rs school, and where he first developed an interest in writing. After less than two years in San Rafael, the Sandom family was transferred back to Europe; they resided at the Wentworth Estate in Surrey England, not far from Virginia Water. Sandom attended The Fernden School in Haslemere, Surrey, and Winchester College, in Hampshire, over the next five years, through his "O" levels. During this period, the author’s family was transferred back to the United States, while he remained in boarding school in England.

Sandom returned to the United States at the age of 15. Following two years at New Canaan High School in Connecticut, Sandom entered Amherst College in 1974, where he completed his first novel, THE SEED OF ICARUS. Sandom took a semester off from college in order to work on a freighter (The African Dawn) which traveled to Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique, and then returned to graduate from Amherst with honors with a double major in English and philosophy. While in college, Sandom helped launch a literary magazine called Writing at Amherst with Caroline Thompson, won both the Corbin prize and the Academy of American Poets prize, and studied under a variety of visiting writers, including Robert Stone, Julian Symons and the Nobel Prize-winning poet Seamus Heaney.

Following graduation, Sandom spent several months traveling throughout the Sahara, primarily in southern Algeria, while researching his second novel, THE BLUE MEN. Sandom then moved to New York City where, for the next five years, he worked as a freelance copy writer, public relations and advertising executive, and corporate spokesperson trainer for such companies as Hill & Knowlton and Ketchum Inc. Odessaukrain (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Looks like peacock, walks like a peacock....

The citation is to Advertizing: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases (ICON Group 2008); this book widely quotes from Wikipeda and in respect to this assertion appears to directly quote the lead-in in the WP article. What do we call that when a WP Article references itself ? (aside from self-serving). It's certainly still peacock info.-Sticks66 01:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Article subject

This is J.G. Sandom in reference to this entry about me on Wikipedia. I was just told about the following blurb at the head of this article: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (February 2013)" I am not sure why this is here, but please feel free to remove whatever was added by whomever added something that was untoward from this article. If you have any evidence about whom it was that added said content, please let me know here; although, I have a sneaking suspicion I know who it may have been. Anyway, I want to make sure that there are sufficient citations or sources for all the information in this entry, and that the article is informative and balanced. Some time ago (years now), I personally cleaned up some inaccuracies (very minor edits), and I also contacted you when a Troll was intentionally maligning me via this venue. But, other than that, at your suggestion, I have left this entry alone, given that it would be a conflict of interest. Any edits or changes made over the last few years were not done by me (though they may have been done by my 12-year-old daughter for a school project!). If any changes were done by this IP address, I apologize and urge you to remove the offending biased copy immediately, or let me know how to perform the appropriate "clean up". Thanking you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandom (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't need an administrator for that, but I don't currently have time to walk you through the conflict of interest guidelines and how the {{COI}} and {{Connected contributor}} templates work. Someone should be by fairly soon to help you further. Technical 13 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

First, the article doesnt look like its written by a 12 year old. Yet I think I'm going to assume good faith, and take it you helped her with the project.

Second, even though it was your daughter who edited it, it is clear COI. COI is more about the tone of the article than the editors themselves, and this article's tone was full of it to the brim. I've trimmed the article to remove as much of the COI as I could. I suggest you add only the couple most important lines back, should you want to.

I hope further bettering of this article will follow, and the tone of the article gets bettered enough to get the COI tag removed. But for now, I think its going to stay there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was great. You guys really know your stuff. Thank you so much. This is much tighter and definitely not as puffy. THANK YOU! But, please note that I am only assuming my daughter precipitated the COI label at the head of the article as I know she EDITED this piece for a school project. She didn't write it; it was written years ago...and NOT by me. I know this for a fact.

A couple of recommendations, if you don't mind:

HEADER: Author instead of authow.

EARLY LIFE: The folks I studied with at university (Seamus Heaney, Julian Symons, et al), which you removed, are of interest to fans of my books. So is the fact that, although I'm a novelist, I won the Academy of American Poets Prize while at Amherst.

AUTHOR: Is it not appropriate to have key "reviews" of my various books? After all, they were all documented and generated by 3rd party, credible sources. Frankly, I think they're going to reappear anyway once my readers see they're gone. They're like that, my fans.

Please let me know here if I can make the changes listed above. I don't want to risk the ire of your editors again by insinuating myself inappropriately into this process or by doing anything that might be considered COI.

Thanking you in advance.

• Hello again. It is fine for you to edit an article of which you have a conflict of interest as long as you follow the main rules of neutrality and be sure to cite everything that "may" be controversial (if there is any doubt at all, assume it is controversial) with reliable independent sources. Also, to cover your butt, add {{COI|{{subst:DATE}}}} to the article page and {{Connected contributor|Sandom}} to the article talk page (top of this page). Technical 13 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've corrected the word author
• I dont think that would be very encyclopediac to have (folks you were with). You may include the prize, after which, we can check for how relevant it is.
• If your fans add that, we'll have to remove it again. Those reviews do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing reviews. Those reviews unbalanaced the article by their sheer volume. If you want to add reviews, I suggest you add no more than 1 or two.
• TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, TheOriginalSoni. I appreciate your assistance. I will add just 1-2 reviews for each title (if that's what you meant; if not, let me know) as that may actually prevent fans from doing too many.

Also, once this is cleaned up, I hope you'll consider getting rid of that COI badge at the top of the entry. I think I am meeting Wikipedia's standards at this point and don't really think it's fair to have it up there any longer. But, of course, that's up to you guys.

Thanks again.

J.

Hi Sandom, that wasn't really a question, and you don't need to use the help me template every time you post on a talk page. Soni likely has this page watched, and will see your comments, and likely respond in time. Or you can mention it on his talk page, in which case he will get a notification. Thank you for your contributions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Sandom. I have watchlisted this page, so you dont need to use {{help me}}. If you're worried I might not see it, you just link my username (That is, you say [[User:TheOriginalSoni]] which shows up as User:TheOriginalSoni) and I get a notification.

And no. I meant 1-2 reviews in TOTAL. Use only the most reliable sources, and add no more than 2 reviews.

I doubt its cleaned as of yet. What I did was a very basic sweep. To get this article to standards worthy of removing that tag, a lot more cleaning is required, which requires plenty of time. The tag can be removed provided the article is cleaned up to remove advertisement-like material. [As a rule of thumb, if there is anything your fan might be interested in, but not me, as a random person who meets you, then its probably advertisement and needs to be removed] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the COI tag was added to the article after these edits by User:Sandom back in February. I think that's the evidence he asked for earlier... This wasn't years ago, and I seriously doubt a 12-year-old would write that "He works with ad agencies and other marketing services companies to enhance their digital marketing solutions, to identify and purchase digital marketing production resources and interactive agencies worldwide, and assists companies in selecting the most appropriate interactive ad agencies/digital marketing services companies to meet their Internet marketing needs", and sharing an account would be a direct violation of Wikipedia's policies anyway. See also the "my little brother did it" defense – "my little daughter did it" is not better. Huon (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

ONE FINAL EDIT BEFORE THE ARTICLE DISAPPEARS

By the way, Huon, I have reinserted the quote that TheOriginalSoni said was appropriate. Delete it again if you wish. As an all-powerful Wikipedia overlord, that is your prerogative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandom (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please ask a question while using help me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD

For the record, Huon (whoever you really are), my daughter took a copy of the old Wikipedia entry about me and used that to update it. So, they were not her words; they were the words of the hive mind. And she did not "share" my account. She used my computer without my permission and went to Wikipedia and, being imperfect, Wikipedia thought she was me -- as I was still logged in! But, thanks for calling me a liar without any documented evidence or appropriate citation.

To TheOriginalSoni I say, "Thanks for your help." I am sorry that some of Wikipedia's other editors felt your advice about adding a couple of book reviews with citations from major industry publications would be okay. Clearly, adding such documented quotes from significant book review publications does not meet the standards of some of Wikipedia's editors.

Now I understand what Andrew Keen, Nicholas G. Carr and Jaron Lanier are all talking about.

Yikes! Then again, it seems that I am not alone in allegedly stepping over the boundaries of what Wikipedia thinks is appropriate:

Article unrelated to this one, according to Wikipedia

Wikipedia Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending BY MEGAN MCCARTHY Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales didn’t have such a good weekend. First the blogosphere and then Wikipedia itself lit up with news of his messy breakup with controversial Canadian TV pundit Rachel Marsden. Now, accusations are flying that Wales has been living the high life on the expense account of the nonprofit foundation he created. On Friday, reports surfaced that the married-but-divorcing internet icon carried on a clandestine affair with Marsden. Evidence of the affair included lurid IM transcripts, which appeared on Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag. On Saturday, Wales posted a statement on the Wikipedia Foundations website (which he later moved to his personal site) denying that his actions went against Wikimedia Foundation’s policies, and stating that the affair had ended. Marsden responded by listing the clothes that he left at her house up for auction on eBay. So, what’s the big deal when a relationship goes sour? Well, the two met when Marsden contacted Wales to help her "clean up" what she perceived to be errors on her personal Wikipedia page, and there have been allegations that Wales used his influence improperly to make changes. Former associates of Wales’ are using this scandal to bring up other worries they have about the organization at the foundation. Former Wikimedia exec Danny Wool, who left the foundation last year, wrote a blog post insinuating that Wales used the nonprofit foundation as his own personal piggy bank. Expenses that Wales tried to apply to the foundation included $300+ bottles of wine and visits to Moscow massage parlors, Wool alleges. According to Wool, the expenses got so out of hand that the Wikimedia Foundation took away Wales’ corporate credit card. "There were occasions where he used [the Wikimedia Foundation] for personal advancement under the guide of the mission. And, as someone who was in there for the mission part of it, I found that rather distressful," Wool told Epicenter. Wales did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

When this Talk Page and the Article Page that were created about me (by others!) disappear or are blocked by Wikipedia's anonymous Kafkaesque editors, I will have the perfect basis for yet another article in Wired or The New York Times. Way to go Huon. Perhaps you can use the "my little brother did it" defense.

[NOTE: I now regret saying this. Just because Huon called me a liar doesn't give me the right to call him one. On the other hand, I'm only human, and I have very little tolerance for false accusers. You will also note that I didn't just strike or delete this impolite statement. Unlike some unidentified editors at Wikipedia who have summarily removed some of the comments on this Talk Page, I have not unilaterally expunged anything. Nor have I tried to leverage so-called sock puppets to do my dirty work for me. Instead, I tried to reach out directly and without guise to solve this issue, as can be readily seen here on this Talk Page . . . only to be insulted (i.e. called a liar, however indirectly; see immediately below), ridiculed, rebuffed, and my protests here on this Talk Page summarily deleted. Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom]

I called you a liar? Where?

[NOTE: Well, actually, you called me a liar by implication when you referenced the "My little brother did it" defense (Wikipedia:BROTHER) which states, "But what if I don't have a little brother? ... So what? You're lying anyway; just pretend you have one," and then added, "my little daughter did it is not better."] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom]

I said that edits were made by User:Sandom, which is supported by the evidence.

[NOTE: While this is technically true, since the phrase refers to my machine and my account, it's also highly misleading since the reference uses my personal name . . . kind of like the edits you made to the reviews of my books. The evidence points to the fact that the edits were created by my machine, not by me. Let's be clear on that score. You can tell someone (at least I hope so vs. an AI; see Ray Kurzweil) used my machine and account to make the Article Page update. But, unless you have some way to access the camera on my laptop and spy into my home, you have no idea -- absolutely none -- if it was me or the man on the moon. So, please don't claim otherwise.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom]

I do indeed doubt that a 12-year-old would use such wording, and you confirm my doubts by stating that she didn't write that herself but took it from "a copy of the old Wikipedia entry" (which one? I tried to find a previous example of that text in the page history and failed).

[NOTE: This is a mystery to me. Upon asking her, my daughter claimed she couldn't remember where she took it from, but thought it was from an old version of the Article. Frankly, I don't know. It could have been from a bio of mine @ LinkedIn or somewhere else. Beats me. But that really isn't the point, is it? (See the next note.)] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC) J.G. Sandom

Basically I don't care if the edits were made by you personally, by your daughter or by your dog – it's your account, and you're responsible for the edits made from it.

[NOTE: You are absolutely right, Huon. I am responsible. That, I will not deny. That said, considering that your own rules don't prohibit me from editing the Article Page about me as long as I avoid COI, your allegations concerning the source of these updates is a bit of a smokescreen. The real question is, then, do my edits violate Wikipedia's rules of COI? This is a subjective issue. I don't believe they do. You and a handful of other editors at Wikipedia believe they do. This question runs to the heart of Wikipedia itself. First of all, since you are not only the rule makers but the rule interpreters, I am SOL if I choose to contest your interpretation! You are the legislator (rule maker), prosecutor (as Wikipedia editor), judge (Wikipedia administrator) and jury (Wikipedia administrator/editor-and-chief). The only thing I can do is point this out to people via this forum, the Talk Page . . . unless you opt to, once again, muzzle me by unilaterally deleting my comments, as some invisible person or persons at Wikipedia have done already. In essence, it's like the justice system of North Korea or Iran, where there is equally little tolerance for dissension or "fair play". In fact, in some ways, it's worse, because of the mantle of "democracy" that Wikipedia claims to wear about its person when it states that you are a forum of the people, for the people, and by the people. Not really. Indeed, I don't even know who you are, being that most of Wikipedia's editors hide behind a veil of anonymity. (See Kafka's The Trial, for a close approximation of what is going on here.) Indeed, Wikipedia revels in the fact that you don't accept traditional authority as the source of your editorial scrutiny. You (TheOriginalSoni) claim that reviews of books have no place at Wikipedia, reviews published by professional reviewers at major publications like The Washington Post, and you (Huon) only reluctantly agreed to post it after striking it from the Article page three (3) times. Instead, you couch your authority on the hive, on the nameless and faceless contributors (backed by a few editor volunteers who, hypocritically, claim to have "authority" due to their knowledge and experience) who constitute your "tyranny of the majority". In other words, an anonymous stranger (with a possible axe to grind, or who is a sock puppet, which seems to be a frequent problem for Wikipedia, based on what I'm reading) has more authority under your system than a scholar with a doctorate degree. This, and the anonymous nature of your editors, is not a strength, as you claim. It is what is worst about Web 2.0, in my view.] [User:Sandom|Sandom]] (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

Regarding the review you re-added, where did TheOriginalSoni say that review was appropriate?

[NOTE: He never said that, as you know. He said it was okay to post two (2) reviews about my nine (9) books, which I tried to do, but which you kept deleting. Now, in frustration and after seeing the vast amounts of content being posted by other writers/authors here on Wikipedia, I have recommended the posing of three (3); i.e. covering but one third of my books. Further, I have tried to make sure they were balanced reviews, with both positive and negative notes.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC) J.G. Sandom

By the way, you accidentally cut short the quote before it mentions the "structural weaknesses in [your book's] architecture".

[NOTE: I cover this issue in SELECTIVE EDITING/REVENGE EDITING, below.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

If we cite reviews, we should cite the bad along with the good.

[NOTE: I completely agree with you re this, Huon, and have tried to select reviews that feature both positive and negative notes.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

Finally, I'm no "all-powerful Wikipedia overlord" – I'm not even an admin and don't hold any relevant privileges on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

[NOTE: You are right, Huon. I guess your "name-calling" stimulated my "name-calling". But, that's not an excuse. I apologize.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

References

Review reversion

I've reverted this edit by User:Sandom for two reasons: Firstly, the Washington Post article doesn't really focus on Sandom and in particular does not contain the "precision and delicacy unusual for YA fiction" wording that's supposed to be a quote. Secondly, the Historical Novel Society is a comparatively obscure organization which calls the advocacy for historical novels one of their goals and which, for all I can tell, has very low standards on who can become a reviewer. Kirkus Reviews is a much more reputable reviewing organization. Huon (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Post article does indeed focus on me and my work, among other writers and books. Indeed, the novel I wrote was remembered a full two (2) years after the book reviewer's first review of the work, cited as a "subtle gem" in Ms. Ward's "Fond Fairwell" as she was leaving her editorial post. I have added the citation re the original review of the book; thanks for pointing that out, Huon. Now that it's there, please do me the courtesy of not deleting it once again!

But, of course, you or one of your cohorts did delete it, just as you've deleted from this Talk Page a comment from one of my fans -- Jeff Einstein -- who agrees with me that your behavior is totally out of line...but, like a Soviet Historian, you just made it disappear! Really!! You said it was okay to have two reviews, and yet when I add a second one (around Kiss Me, I'm Dead), you don't let me post it. Hmmmmm. Why? Are the citations not real? Don't you trust what you read at The Washington Post? Do you distrust Ms. Ward's capabilities as a book reviewer? By way of experiment, let's let the hive mind judge whether or not these two citations are worthy, shall we? Here they are: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701208.html; and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903291.html. Look for The Unresolved (the original title) by T.K. Welsh (my pen name at the time). If you don't think Wikipedia should get away with this kind of censorship, post a Comment on this Talk Page. Hopefully, they won't delete it this time as they did Jeff Einstein's Comment.

If it walks like a Soviet historian, and quacks like a Soviet historian, it probably is a Soviet historian. Sandom (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

Furthermore, to say that the Historical Novel Society is an obscure organization shows Huon's lack of expertise in a field about which s/he is editing. Further, "for all I can tell" does not engender great confidence. Perhaps you should spend more than a few minutes online doing your research -- which is all you took -- before making such pronouncements. (See Revenge Editing, below) Sandom (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

A Fond Farewell devotes all of four lines to you, and we should cite it not for the "subtle gem" line but for the connection to your young adult pen name – it's the only source that makes this connection, unless I'm mistaken. The the Library Journal homepage does not mention what you cited it for, and I can find no evidence that they ever reviewed a book of yours, especially not Gospel Truths.

[NOTE: You may not have found evidence, but it exists if you look for it . . . because Library Journal did review it, and they reviewed it favorably. In fact, the review appears on the actual book when the novel was reissued by Bantam in 2007. (http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Truths-J-G-Sandom/dp/0553589792/) Unfortunately, it was reviewed by Library Journal back in the early 1990s, before that prestigious review journal went online in any meaningful way.] Sandom (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

The Booklist review is hidden behind a paywall; I could sign up for a free trial and check whether your ellipses again hid the less positive parts of the review, but why not go with the Kirkus Reviews one that is available without that hassle? Let me put it this way: The fact that you not only cited only the most positive parts of the Kirkus review but even omitted the ellipsis when you truncated their conclusion inspires no confidence in the accuracy of your other review summaries. While we're at it, the link for the 2007 Teens Top Ten nomination for Kiss Me, I'm Dead is broken, and all I can tell is that the book didn't win. The Jewish Libraries website also gives a 404 error, and I can find no evidence that The Unresolved won.[1][2] This is beginning to look a little bleak. Huon (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, Huon, I guess your line, "without a hassle" kind of sums it all up, doesn't it? If it requires some actual work, some real independent journalistic skill, or some real desire to be objective and fair, you would have found this link in less than two minutes...which is what I did: http://bookverdict.com/details.xqy?uri=Product-27178723.xml. Kiss Me, I'm Dead, formerly titled The Unresolved and released by Penguin/Dutton under pen name T.K. Welsh was published some time ago. It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the links I cite on my website (See www.jgsandom.com) are no longer working. Forgive me if I don't spend hours and hours of my time checking them every month to ensure that they are still up to your standards. The only reason I'm spending so much time correcting your groundless insinuations and false allegations is because I am trying to make a point about what's wrong with Wikipedia, and what's wrong with you as a so-called "editor". So, check bookverdict.com and you will see that the journals I claim reviewed my book did indeed review my book. Now, I am sorry if -- due to policies beyond my control -- you might have to sign up for a free trial or actually pay something to get the full reviews. But if you actually cared about the truth (rather than your peacocking and posturing via this testosterone-driven "revenge editing"), you would find out for yourself. Why don't you ask Jimmy Wales for some of the money he allegedly garnished from the Wikipedia Foundation and devote it to some real investigative journalism rather than simply slamming folks based on innuendo and half truths. Sandom (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

[NOTE: Well, I guess you can tell that I was getting pretty mad here! LOL Again, that's really no excuse to be so mean. I'm sorry, Huon. And I should also say I'm sorry to Jimbo Wales. But the point I was trying to make is that prosecution by innuendo is no fun, and all too often not really justified. I am sure Mr. Wales didn't like it when his former partner came out with such accusations about him. I don't know what evidence he had to make his claims of misappropriation of funds against Mr. Wales (as I have never worked at Wikipedia), but it sure looked bad. And, again, that's the point. It looks bad when folks smear one another . . . no matter what the evidence. Still, it was nasty of me to use the same tactics against Huon and Wales here that I am accusing them of using against me. Sorry.] Sandom (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

Since you may not personally have the money (or the inclination) to pay to access the School Library Journal (Starred) review of the title in question, here it is:

School Library Journal – Starred review, September, 2006

"On the day of her first kiss, June 15, 1904, Mallory Meer, 15, dies in the General Slocum steamship disaster. That historical blaze killed more than 1000 people from the part of New York City known as Kleindeutschland. Dustin Brauer, her Jewish boyfriend, had snuck aboard to be with her. Now, he is accused of setting the fire by the son of his father’s employer, a leader in the German neighborhood. As the official coroner’s inquest occurs, a secondary one takes place in the community with Dustin on trial. Mallory, now insubstantial, sees everything and helps the truth to emerge.

"While historically no conclusive proof was found of how the fire started, (Sandom) does a creditable job of imagining how it spread, including disturbing images of those trapped on the burning vessel. He uses Mallory’s ghostly presence to bring the coroner’s inquest, and those from the boat company and the safety inspector’s office, to life. (Kiss Me, I'm Dead) tells a remarkable story in a remarkable way. Give this engrossing novel to fans of Kathryn Reiss or Vivian Vande Velde’s Being Dead (Harcourt, 2001), and to those who like a supernatural flair with their historical fiction. Without explaining anti-Semitism or corruption, (Sandom) shows readers the neighborhood’s vibrancy and prejudices and helps them to understand how justice worked in early-20th-century New York."

If you would like a FREE copy of the book, Huon, please send me your address (or a PO Box, if you're concerned about preserving your anonymity) via my website and I'll be happy to mail you a signed edition. That way, you can read for yourself what kind of a writer I really am.

[NOTE: The offer still stands, and it was made in earnest. I am happy to send you a copy of any of my books so you can judge them for yourself, Huon.] Sandom (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

And if you can't find some of the reviews of Gospel Truths online -- as the book was published back in 1991 before the Web took off -- I suggest you look at this review of The God Machine, which is the sequel, located at BookPage: http://www.bookpage.com/the-book-case/2009/07/20/more-on-tesla-in-fiction/ Of course, you may not think this major resource is any good either, Huon. After all, it seems that if a resource praises my work, it's no good. But if it gives my work a middling or poor review, it just has to be right!

[NOTE: Again, while I stand behind the sentiment of this remark, I have to admit it was kind of mean. Sarcasm, they say, is the lowest form of wit.] Sandom (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom Sandom (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

References

REVENGE EDITING

Before my next addition to this Talk Page mysteriously disappears once again, or is hidden behind a light green box stating "Article unrelated to this one" when that article is about Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and his own personal efforts to help "clean up" the Wikipedia article about a woman with whom he subsequently had an affair (talk about COI), I hope that some will have a chance to read this note. Regarding the reviews that I added, including the quote from The Washington Post which Huon saw fit to delete, it's worthwhile noting that I was told by TheOriginalSoni above that it was okay to add a couple of reviews of my books, which I did...and which Huon then capriciously deleted in what appears to be an act of revenge editing. Later, Huon allowed me to post one (1) review, which he subsequently edited to include the worst parts of the review, whilst editing to a nub the best parts. So much for your impartial editing, Huon.

"What is revenge editing?" you may ask.

For those who care to know what folks are really thinking about "editors" such as Huon, check out this fascinating article from Salon. Sandom (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

• Stop. Please stop. Nobody removed any of your edits, and anyone who wants to read that article can still do so by clicking the show button.

[NOTE: I am afraid that this is simply not true. Some of my notes on this Talk Page have been summarily deleted, as was the note added by Jeff Einstein. And while the article below may be available behind another click, as someone who is known in the ad world as "The Father of Internet Advertising", I can attest to the fact that forcing users to make another click significantly decreases the chances that the content behind that click will ever be seen. I would characterize this as a form of intentional censorship.] Sandom (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

As for reversion of your edits, it is more than clear that you have been adding only the things that are said nice about your books, but deliberately leaving out the critical parts. Which is why Huon added a source which had both good and bad parts. If you have problems with that, i suggest you discuss which one to add, and why. 07:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

[NOTE: I have been trying to discuss this very issue on this Talk Page!] Sandom (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

Another unrelated article, according to Wikipedia

Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia The unmasking of a writer who took extraordinary advantage of online anonymity to pursue old vendettas BY ANDREW LEONARD In the wee hours of the morning of January 27, 2013, a Wikipedia editor named “Qworty” made a series of 14 separate edits to the Wikipedia page for the late writer Barry Hannah, a well-regarded Southern novelist with a taste for the Gothic and absurd. Qworty cut paragraphs that included quotes from Hannah’s work. He removed 20 links to interviews, obituaries and reminiscences concerning Hannah. He cut out a list of literary prizes Hannah had won. Two edits stand out. Qworty excised the phrase “and was regarded as a good mentor” from a sentence that started: “Hannah taught creative writing for 28 years at the University of Mississippi, where he was director of its M.F.A. program …” And he changed the cause of Hannah’s death from “natural causes” to “alcoholism.” But Hannah’s obituaries stated that he had died of a heart attack and been clean and sober for years before his death, while his role as a mentor was testified to in numerous memorials. Another editor later removed the alcoholism edit.) Taken all together, the edits strongly suggest a focused attempt to diminish Hannah’s legacy. But why? Who was Qworty and what axe did he have to grind with Hannah? The answer to this question is on the one hand simple, almost trivial: Qworty turned out to be another author who had a long history of resenting Hannah. The late night Wikipedia edits are certainly not the first time that a writer’s ego has led to mischief. But the story is also important. Wikipedia is one of the jewels in the Internet’s crown, an amazing collective achievement, a mighty stab at realizing an awesome dream: a constantly updated repository for all human knowledge. It is created from the bottom up, a crowd-sourced labor of love by people who require no compensation for their work but also don’t need to jump through any qualifying hoops. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Just create an account and start messing around! Qworty’s edits undermine our trust in this great project. Qworty’s edits prove that Wikipedia’s content can be shaped by people settling grudges and acting out of spite and envy. Qworty alone, by his own account, has made 13,000 edits to Wikipedia. And Qworty, as the record will show, is not to be trusted. ++++ Qworty first came to my attention in late April, when I discovered that he was responsible for a series of “revenge edits” to Wikipedia pages associated with the writer Amanda Filipacchi. Filipacchi had made a big splash with her widely read New York Times op-ed identifying a pattern of sexist editing at the online encyclopedia. Qworty’s edits were an obvious act of retaliation. In my piece, I called out two disturbing outbursts made by Qworty in different Wikipedia discussion forums, cries of rage that revealed a level of high emotion one does not normally associate with sober encyclopedia writing. In the parlance of Wikipedia, “revenge edits” are modifications to a Wikipedia page motivated by anger. They are acts of punishment. Such behavior is officially considered bad form by the larger Wikipedia “community,” but given Wikipedia’s commitment to anonymity and general decentralized structure, it is a practice that is very difficult to stamp out. In the aftermath of the Filipacchi episode, Qworty did not lack for defenders. Qworty, like many other Wikipedia editors, took seriously his responsibility to root out what he considered self-promotion, unjustifiable praise or outright puffery. Just the facts, ma’am! He described himself, on his own Wikipedia user page, as particularly focused on identifying and fixing “articles with potential conflicts of interest.” Wherever he found people manipulating Wikipedia to their own advantage, he would intervene. On Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales’ Talk page, some Wikipedia editors argued that Qworty’s actions in the Filipacchi affair were entirely proper. What’s more, even if he did occasionally go overboard, the subsequent public attention on the results of his over-enthusiasm would rectify affairs. That’s how Wikipedia works, the argument goes. Whenever focus turns to some hitherto lightly-visited Wikipedia backwater, it is not unusual for a flurry of editors to arrive to scrub everything clean and bring it all up to proper snuff. The endlessly iterative Wikipedia rights itself in the end. But two weeks after my story was published, a group of Wikipedia editors affiliated with the Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy approached me. After weeks of research, these editors were convinced that they had identified Qworty as a novelist who had long been surreptitiously editing his own Wikipedia page — and was guilty of his own multiple instances of self-puffery. Not only was Qworty guilty of revenge editing, they argued, but he was also a raging hypocrite! A conflict-of-interest cop who had initially created a Wikipedia account for the sole purpose of pursuing his own self-interest. The writer they identified is Robert Clark Young, author of the 1999 novel “One of the Guys.” After reviewing their research and doing some of my own reporting, I thought there was enough evidence to go on to pursue the story. On Tuesday, May 14, I contacted Young on Facebook. We chatted for 15 minutes or so. He categorically denied any connection to Qworty. “I know nothing of how Wikipedia is edited and have never had an account there,” Young told me. “I’m afraid that I am so tech-deficient that I wouldn’t even know how to open one.” Young’s denial was so whole-hearted it made me doubt the case against him. Perhaps he was actually exactly what he claimed to be, an utterly non-tech-savvy writer who has in the past few years dedicated himself primarily to taking care of his elderly, ill parents. And yet at the same time, Qworty and Young were clearly connected. Not only did Qworty have a long history of close involvement with editing Young’s page, but I found that he had a long record of negatively editing the pages of writers that Young had had disputes with in the past. With the help of Wikipediocracy, I discovered a real-world story here that went at least as far back as 2001, when Robert Clark Young participated in a well-known writer’s workshop at the Sewanee Writers’ Conference in Tennessee. A workshop that was led by none other than Barry Hannah. According to one eyewitness account, Young’s work was not well received at that workshop. So one theory for Qworty’s mysterious edits was that he was working out old grudges. His Wikipedia edits were an online mirror of off-line vendettas. I dug deeper, and as the week progressed I continued to press Young with further questions. On Thursday morning, about 48 hours after I first contacted Young, Qworty published a dramatic manifesto on his user page at Wikipedia. Titled “Who is Qworty?” the essay declared Qworty to be “a schtick … an entertainment, an annoyance, a distraction, a put-on, a reading experience, a performance, a series of ironies, an inversion that you do or do not get.” “Wikipedia is the great postmodern novel,” declared Qworty. “Wikipedia is ‘not truth’…Wikipedia, like any other text, is not reality.” Those of us who depend on Wikipedia as a source of neutral, accurate information might find some cause for alarm in the fact that an editor responsible for 13,000 edits believes Wikipedia is a postmodern novel. But ironically, the closer one examines the trail of evidence left behind by Qworty, the stronger his case seems! If truth is messy, then Wikipedia is even messier. I told Young later that morning that I was more convinced than ever that he was Qworty. A few hours later, he responded to me with a baffling sequence of messages that at first made no sense. Eventually, I realized that he had confused me with someone else, and in doing so, had seriously contradicted some of his earlier assertions. A few hours later, at 4 p.m. Pacific time, Young told me on Facebook that he had posted a statement on his Wikipedia page. The jig was up. Qworty admitted that he was “Bob Young.” In my experience, mysteries rarely wrap themselves up so neatly. But solving the question of Qworty’s true identity doesn’t end this story. In his confession, Qworty claimed that “All of my edits have been in accordance with Wikipedia policy.” This is hard to square with many of his edits to the pages of other writers and, in particular, his strenuous efforts to hide his own identity when editing his own page. Qworty has also been at the center of scores of disputes over the years. He has even come to the angry attention of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on at least three separate occasions. As far back as 2010, Wales told Qworty that “You have been warned many times in the past about civility violations and so I know you know better.” Qworty has destructively edited the pages of other writers. He has made numerous edits to his own page while obsessively hiding his true identity. And yet there have never been any significant consequences for his actions. For those of us who love Wikipedia, the ramifications of the Qworty saga are not comforting: If Qworty has been allowed to run free for so long — sabotaging the “truth” however he sees fit, writing his own postmodern novel — how many others are also creating spiteful havoc under the hood, where no one is watching? ++++ Before we get to the nitty gritty of how Qworty was exposed, let’s spend some time in the real world of Robert Clark Young. The first paragraph of Young’s Wikipedia page finishes with the line: “Young has been involved in several high-profile issues through the fiction and journalistic articles he has written.” For our purposes here, the most noteworthy of these “high-profile issues” was a ferocious assault launched by Young against the Alabama writer Brad Vice, along with nearly everyone else associated with the Sewanee Writers’ Conference, published in the pages of the New York Press in December 2005. At the time Brad Vice was an up-and-coming writer who had made a very bad mistake. In one of his short stories, “Tuscaloosa Knights,” he included, without attribution, passages from an autobiographical non-fiction work by Carl Carmer, a writer who is an icon of sorts for the Alabama literary community. The discovery of what many saw as a clear case of plagiarism created a huge stink. Vice’s first collection of stories was pulped by his publisher (although it was later reissued in slightly revised form). An argument can be made that Vice’s “plagiarism” was actually a convoluted, postmodernish homage to Carmer. A fierce and lengthy battle broke out in the Southern literary community over just exactly how big a sin Vice had committed. Vice is teaching at the University of West Bohemia in the Czech Republic and declined to revisit with me what he considers the most painful part of his life. But how one judges Brad Vice isn’t really pertinent to this story. What we do know for sure is that Robert Clark Young devoted a significant amount of intellectual and emotional energy to attacking not just Vice, but the entire community of writers centered around the Sewanee Writers’ Conference that had nurtured Vice. In his New York Press diatribe, Young described the Sewanee writers as a bunch of backscratchers who “go about coloring one another’s Easter eggs and then filling one another’s baskets.” He reserved special vehemence for Barry Hannah, “the conference’s Godfather, the ailing patriarch who sits in an overstuffed chair in the conference bookstore, too weak to stand, the youngsters kneeling before him as he signs books.” “While Hannah’s posterior is arguably the most prominent one available for the ambitious lips that gather at Sewanee,” wrote Young, “Vice was prolific in giving positive strokes to anyone at the conference who could have been of use to him.” But perhaps the most important passage is one which named no writers at all, but just described the conference. Over those 12 days, many of the South’s leading writers will congregate here. They will decide which of the conference’s attendees should be considered for future scholarships to the conference, which writers should receive letters of recommendation to graduate programs, which hot new novelists should receive blurbs, which conference attendees should be nominated for inclusion in “New Stories From the South,” and which book-length manuscripts might make good candidates for next year’s Flannery O’Connor Award in Short Fiction. In addition to deciding which writers will be rewarded with career boosts, they will decide which writers will be greeted at the conference with indifference or of icial silence or, even worse, a coordinated workshop attack. The emphasis is mine. Because one relevant piece of data that Young probably should have included in his broadside was the fact that in the summer of 2001, Young had been a guest fellow at the Sewanee Writers’ Conference, where he had both given a reading and participated in a workshop co-taught by Barry Hannah. In the eruption of online commentary that Young’s article provoked, a longtime Sewanee staffer, novelist Leah Stewart, pointed out Young’s omission. Acknowledging that she was “one of the Sewanee insiders Young so despises,” Stewart wrote that “I don’t even begin to recognize the version of Sewanee Young paints, and I can’t help but feel that that description, and his vendetta against Brad Vice, are colored by the fact that his work was poorly received at the conference, both in the workshop and at the reading he gave.” I contacted Stewart this week, and she confirmed to me via email her account of the Sewanee workshop. Young/Qworty later contended that comments such as Stewart’s were part of a “smear campaign” carried out by Vice’s friends. That possibility cannot be ruled out of hand, but one has to wonder: Did Young consider himself to be a victim of a “coordinated workshop attack” at Sewanee? And did he vow revenge? ++++ So much for the real world, where writers have been getting pissed off at other writers and taking their vengeance via the poison pen since the days when cuneiform was the dominant communications medium. Now let’s move to the online world of Wikipedia, where the same pettiness and spite runs rampant, only cloaked in pseudonyms and hidden in palimpsest-like layers. Let’s put aside Robert Clark Young for the moment, and focus on Qworty. Qworty’s very first action as a Wikipedia editor, barely five minutes after he created his account on March 10, 2007, was to archive the Talk page devoted to Robert Clark Young’s Wikipedia page. Talk pages are where Wikipedia editors hash out their differences on what should be included in the text of a Wikipedia article. If you are a savvy Wikipedia user, and you doubt the accuracy or sourcing of some element in a particular article, it is often quite useful to inspect the Talk page to see what people have been fighting about. Talk pages show how the sausage gets made. Talk pages, just like actual Wikipedia articles, can also be edited — conversations about content can be removed, as well as the content itself. It is to Wikipedia’s great credit that not only is every single previous version of every Wikipedia article preserved for all time, but so too are all the versions of all the discussions about those pages. Archiving a Talk page doesn’t get rid of it entirely; it just makes the page one more click distant from the curious reader. The usual justification for archiving a page is that it has gotten too long and unwieldy and out of date. Years of old discussions make it difficult to find more recent discussions of pertinent matters. But archiving a page is also a way of hiding it, of adding one more level of obscurity to issues that someone might prefer left out of the public eye. And that’s where it gets interesting. Notable items on the Talk page about Young that was archived by Qworty included 1) a long dispute between two editors about how best to describe Young’s involvement in the Brad Vice plagiarism controversy, 2) an assertion that Young had at one time admitted writing his own Wikipedia page, and 3) an exchange between two editors in which one editor was suspicious that the other was actually Robert Clark Young, acting under yet another hidden identity. The fact that Qworty’s very first action as an editor was to make it just a little bit more difficult for the casual reader to stumble upon discussions questioning whether Young was involved in editing his own page raised a red flag for the Wikipediocracy editors investigating Qworty. They were further intrigued to discover that two additional edits had then been made to the archived Talk page. These edits removed the reference to Young’s supposed admission that he had written his own page and deleted the conversation in which one editor had questioned the true identity of the other editor. The Wikipediocracy researchers further discovered that those two edits had been made by two different editors who had created accounts solely to make one edit — the change to the archived Talk page about Young. After making those edits, the accounts never made another edit again. The implication is obvious. Someone was really obsessed about doing everything possible to hide any discussion of whether Robert Clark Young was involved in editing his own page, to the point that they were creating special purpose Wikipedia accounts to cover their tracks. In my own reporting, the only online reference I could find to Young supposedly admitting that he had written his own Wikipedia page appears in a blog post by the writer Michelle Richmond in December 2005, shortly after Young’s New York Press piece. Richmond, a novelist originally from Alabama but now living in San Francisco, had made the assertion while discussing Leah Stewart’s account of Robert Clark Young’s bad Sewanee experience. I called Richmond up and asked her whether she remembered the source of her assertion. She could not recall where she had heard it. As far as I was concerned, as a reporter, her blog post was therefore useless for proving anything about Qworty’s identity. It was unsourced hearsay, and I could understand that a good case could be made that it should have no place in the sourcing for a Wikipedia article. Still, I was intrigued to see that an effort had been made to hide the discussion about the propriety of linking to her post in an archived Talk page. And alarm bells really started to ring when I learned that in April 2013, Qworty made a series of changes to Michelle Richmond’s Wikipedia page, removing links to stories by and about her. As I came to discover, over the years, Qworty has also made changes to Brad Vice’s Wikipedia page, to Barry Hannah’s Wikipedia page, and to the pages of another Sewanee writer treated very harshly in Young’s New York Press story, Richard Bausch. Qworty, of course, made scores of changes to Robert Clark Young’s page. Now that we know Qworty is Robert Young, the evidence of rampant abuse of Wikipedia’s policies on conflict-of-interest is undeniable. The most hilarious Qworty-Young conflict-of-interest incident involves the writer Thomas Pynchon. In January 2007, a Wikipedia editor named “Mangawood” — again, an account that only made one edit, ever, to Wikipedia — added the following paragraph to Thomas Pynchon’s page: In the late 1980s, author Robert Clark Young prevailed upon his father, an employee of the California Department of Motor Vehicles, to look up Pynchon’s driving record, using Pynchon’s full name and known birthdate. The results showed that Pynchon was living at the time in Aptos, California, and was driving a Datsun. Young reported the episode in his essay “One Writer’s Big Innings,” published in the Black Warrior Review and reprinted in the AWP Chronicle. Two days later, another editor changed the last sentence to, “The improperly-obtained cancelled license subsequently found its way into the hands of at least two academics publishing scholarly work on Pynchon.” Three years later, Qworty deleted the words “improperly-obtained” from the sentence. No detail involving Robert Clark Young was too small for Qworty/Young to attend to. There were moments during the reporting of this story that felt like I had become a character in a Thomas Pynchon novel. Then Pynchon made a cameo appearance. Could the story get any deliciously weirder? Yes, it could. If you consider a rampaging army of sock puppets weird. A sock puppet is an online persona created to purposefully disguise one’s identity. According to the Wikipediocracy researchers who have gone over every edit on Robert Clark Young’s page with a brace of exceedingly fine-toothed combs, much of the early work creating and editing the page —long before Qworty made the scene — was carried out by a series of disposable sock puppets: Wikipedia accounts that were created, made a few edits and then disappeared forever. Many of these sock puppets can be traced to IP addresses located in California, where Young was raised and still lives. Three different sock puppets were affirmatively discovered to be operated by the same person behind Qworty — a big no-no for Wikipedia. One short-lived sock puppet was named “Professor Ron Hill” — the name of an English professor who taught at the University of San Diego while Robert Clark Young was attending classes there. Some of the sock puppets were female personas, some male. (One person who knows Young told me that he often liked to assume female personas online.) When I first reviewed it, the available information about the sock puppets who have been editing Young’s page didn’t add up to anything I would consider a smoking gun proving that they were all operated by Young. Now that we know that Qworty is Robert Young, it seems entirely possible that the majority of these sock puppets, if not all of them, were Young. We’ll probably never know the full truth. What we do know, however, casts a harsh light on Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s commitment to respecting anonymity means anyone can create their own sock puppet and make whatever edits they like. This is supposed to be against Wikipedia’s rules, but the available evidence suggests that enforcement is lax. And this is what bothers the Wikipediocracy critics the most. This is why they came to me. There’s no accountability. “The reason I am doing this,” said Andreas Kolbe, one of the Wikipedocracy members who shared his research with me, “is that I want the public to know just what goes on under the surface of Wikipedia and how the site plays dice with people’s reputations by allowing anonymous editing of biographies of living persons. As someone who joined the project with a fair amount of enthusiasm for its mission more than seven years ago, I have found the realities of how Wikipedia is written irresponsible and deeply disturbing, and given the site’s status as a top-10 website, I believe the public needs to understand just what is going on in Wikipedia day after day.” ++++ On Tuesday, I found Robert Clark Young on Facebook, and I asked him straight out if he was Qworty. Here is our first exchange: Andrew Leonard Hi, I’m a writer for Salon, researching a story about Wikipedia editing. Your name has come up in the discussion of the activities of a user named Qworty, and I’d like to talk to you about it. Robert Clark Young Hello Andrew, I know nothing of how Wikipedia is edited and have never had an account there. I’m afraid that I am so tech-deficient that I wouldn’t even know how to open one. I have been aware for some time that there is an article there about me, but like many articles on Wikipedia (as I gather), it contains several factual errors. For instance, I never graduated with a Ph.D. from the University of Houston, and have never claimed to. I left the doctoral creative program there after one year. A few years ago, my agent wrote to the editors of Wikipedia to have this and a few other errors corrected, but to my knowledge nothing was ever done. If you know someone who could help me with this I would be most grateful. All the best, Andrew Leonard Thanks. So the story gets curiouser and curiouser. Did you know that there are a group of Wikipedia editors who are convinced that _you_ are the Wikipedia editor Qworty? Did you know that just a few days ago, your Wikipedia page was vandalized (and then restored) — as part of the back-and-forth in a very convoluted sequence of “edit wars” that has been raging for the last few weeks? Robert Clark Young No, I was not aware of any of that. I am not an editor “Qwerty” and I do not know any editors there. Also, what do you mean by “vandalized”? Do you mean vandalized as in stolen or robbed and then moved to another website or something? Should I be alarmed, and/or should I contact the editor-in-chief of Wikipedia perhaps? Thank you for the information. Some parts of the exchange struck me as odd, particularly his declaration that he was was tech deficient.” Young has over 5,000 friends on Facebook, a Twitter account, a resume that includes a stint teaching at the online-only University of Phoenix and a credit on his eldercare website that says “Designed by Robert Young © 2012 using Homestead website templates.” He sounded right at home in the realm of new technology. After I discovered Qworty’s pattern of meddling with Wikipedia pages of writers that Young had tangled with, I challenged him again but received no answer. Instead, Qworty published his postmodern Wikipedia manifesto. A few hours after I told Young on Facebook that I was convinced he had written the manifesto, he responded with a series of messages that made no sense. He seemed to be confusing me with someone else. Robert Clark Young I don’t get it. And I mean this as objectively as possible, since I have zero knowledge of the background here. But it seems to me that saying “It’s a shit article about a non-notable dump of a store” is a lightyear or two distant from the work of Jesus. Now, for all I know, it IS a shit article and the store IS a fucking dump. I haven’t looked at the article and I haven’t been in the store. So if what we are discussing is your beef or complaint or whatever you want to term it, I don’t see it. If, on the other hand, your issue is full disclosure in journalism, then I suppose in every article you write bashing Wikipedia, you would be required to list your extensive blocking history there, as well as whatever went on. I don’t know what went on. None of these are my issues. Young’s message was baffling. I knew that I had never said, anywhere “It’s a shit article about a non-notable dump of a store.” So I googled that phrase and found it turned up in a Wikipediocracy thread that, oddly, a member of Wikipediocracy had tweeted a link to me the day before. But the phrase that really jumped out at me was the reference to my “extensive blocking history” at Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, editors who break the rules and are caught are blocked from being able to continue editing. I have no “blocking history” at Wikipedia — I’ve never even had an account there. The reference caught Young in a revealing contradiction. He’d pretended initially that he had no knowledge of how Wikipedia works, but the context of this bizarre communication indicated that he had a pretty good understanding of the interior mechanics of Wikipedia. I suggested he needed to come clean. Two hours later, Young sent me a message saying he had posted a statement on Wikipedia. That turned out to be Qworty’s confession. In his confession, Qworty/Young made the following claims: I stand behind all of my other edits. If you disagree with some of them, then your disagreement is with Wikipedia policies themselves or the ways in which you perceive that I have applied them. Or perhaps your disagreement is more fundamental: with the “culture” of Wikipedia itself. In 2005 and 2006, my own Wikipedia article was vandalized by writers with whom I was then engaged in a public literary feud. I came here initially to correct and defend the article about me. I then became interested in Wikipedia editing in general. Over the years, I have occasionally edited the Wikipedia articles of writers with whom I have feuded. These edits were done in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and I stand by those edits. The mind boggles. After years of styling himself as someone who specializes in scrubbing Wikipedia pages clean of “conflicts of interest,” Qworty/Young admitted to editing “the Wikipedia articles of writers with whom I have feuded.” How can Wikipedia possibly allow this man to keep his editing privileges? And how are we, the general public, supposed to trust Wikipedia, when Qworty’s record shows how easy it is to work out personal grudges and real-world vendettas in this great online encyclopedia for years without anyone taking action? Qworty is just one of thousands of Wikipedia editors. He is surely not representative of the mainstream. But just as surely, there are others like him, working out their own agendas under cover of assumed identities. We just don’t know. Nobody knows. Nobody watches everything that happens on Wikipedia; nobody can watch everything that happens. But Qworty’s example tells us that even when people call attention to a rogue editor, even when that editor’s temper tantrums come to the attention of the founder of Wikipedia, it’s quite possible that no action will be taken. [NOTE: Yes, “rogue” editor. Notice the impartial and helpful editing, plus the cordial tone of the exchanges between me and TheOriginalSoni before Huon joined the conversation. JGS] The greatest irony of Qworty’s story is that his own actions as an editor prove his theory that Wikipedia is a postmodern novel in which “truth” and “reality” don’t exist. And yet Wikipedia is also an important, valuable part of everyday information lives, relied upon by millions of people as a great source of information. What does it say about all of us that we’re living in, and depending on, a postmodern novel constructed, in part, on grudge-settling authors engaged in ancient vendettas? Could Thomas Pynchon have dreamed this up? UPDATE: Moments before this article was due to be published, a member of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee posted the following message on Qworty’s Talk page. Your thoughts on your userpage and above present some interesting food for thought. However, some of your comments above are extremely troubling when considered in light of your edits and the “rants” you posted last month, which were deeply unfortunate and reflected negatively on the project. If you do continue or resume editing in the future, you are directed not to edit biographical articles concerning any living person (other than yourself and excluding reversion of obvious vandalism) and not to make disparaging comments about any living person on any page of Wikipedia. I hope you will understand that at this point, these restrictions are in the best interests of all concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC) SECOND UPDATE: For further reading on this saga, including more details about how Qworty went about his editing, please read this blog post by the folks at Wikipediocracy: http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/17/anonymous-revenge-editing-on-wikipedia-the-case-of-robert-clark-young-aka-qworty/

SELECTIVE EDITING/REVENGE EDITING

And so it goes on. While I am all for a balanced approach to things, it is completely unacceptable to selectively choose (at your end) one particular review that is mediocre at best from dozens and dozens that were struck by your editors because they "unbalanced" the accompanying article, and to intentionally omit a well-documented piece of praise from a major source such as The Washington Post. To claim that this is balanced is pure nonsense. It is as selective to choose and post only one bad or mediocre review as it is to choose one good review. In your zeal to pretend non-partisanship, you have indeed become partisan.

Here is what Huon elected to strike:

The Washington Post said, "(J.G. Sandom) writes with a precision and delicacy unusual for YA fiction," and called the novel, "a subtle gem."

As you can see, the first refers to The Washington Post's review editor's recollection of the work two years after she had read the book, singling it out as a title which had stood out in her mind as she was about to step down from her post at the Post. The second refers to the initial review of the same book!

But Huon did not want to include this as it was clearly too positive a review from a major and celebrated source.

Instead, after a half dozen other reviews added by my fans were unceremoniously struck from the article, the only one Huon elected to keep -- after I had been told by TheOriginalSoni that it would be appropriate to include two (2) reviews -- was the following:

Sandom's most recent novel, The Wave, was reissued in June 2010 by Cornucopia Press. Kirkus Reviews said Sandom's characterizations of heroes and "stock bad guys" were drifting into caricature, but lauded the story's pacing, concluding: "A story with enough manic energy to be worthy of a nuclear explosion and enough to render moot any structural weaknesses in its architecture."[16]

Note how this one (1) review features two sour notes (i.e. "drifting into caricature" and "structural weaknesses") and only one note of faint praise (i.e. "lauded the story's pacing" due to "manic energy"), if you can even call "manic" praise.

This is not balanced.

And when I tried to replace this "mixed" review of The Wave with a review of another one of my titles (e.g. The God Machine), hoping that this would make this contentious issue moot, or to reintroduce the praise from The Washington Post which named "Kiss Me, I'm Dead" one of the Ten Best Children's Books of the year (supplementing copy about said book already in situ and acceptable to the anonymous Overlords of Wikipedia) in an effort to round out the Article, both efforts were thwarted by Huon.

This is hardly fair and balanced and reeks of "Revenge Editing." After all, I had the unmitigated gall to "review" Wikipedia itself, the monolithic symbol of Web 2.0.

In response, you say:

"it is more than clear that you have been adding only the things that are said nice about your books..." It is not clear to me at all. And if this writing is reflective of Wikipedia's editorial pruning, God help us all. (Forgive me if English is not your first language.)

So, once again, in order to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia, and to provide your readers with a fair and balanced perspective, lacking after Huon's injection into a heretofore civil and balanced conversation with TheOriginalSoni, I have reinserted the quotes from The Washington Post and trimmed the review of The Wave (whilst still retaining a sour note; i.e. the "structural weakness" of said title).

And, no; I will not stop. While you may do this for fun, or to stimulate the thrill of anonymous dominion over others, or because you have real altruistic motivations, or to just be control freaks, this is my writing career you are playing with. Last I looked, I was still living in the United States of America where I have a Constitutionally-granted right to free speech. And while I am all for balance and fairness, I am not for your Nazi-like, unilateral decision to paint an unbalanced view of what reviewers and readers alike think of my work.

This is exactly what the brilliant and insightful critics of Wikipedia Andrew Keen, Nicholas Carr and Jaron Lanier talk about in their work...and I urge anyone reading this to take the time to read their books. When it comes to Article Pages such as this one, the hive mind of Wikipedia is really just a few people -- not the endless line of critical thinkers we are all led to believe is behind each and every Article -- too often with little or no knowledge of a subject or real expertise exercising dominion, like bullies in high school, in an anonymous manner over those who cannot fight back or cry foul except in the manner I am exercising right now.

Anyone not with an axe to grind would clearly see that Huon has acted in an unbalanced way in his selective editing of this Article Page. Yet, instead of welcoming the knowledge of a true expert on the subject (myself, as it's about me!), in keeping with the rules and posted guidelines of Wikipedia, you anonymously shoot it down.

I have the same right to edit this article as you do. Indeed, as long as I am not violating COI guidelines (and I defy you to prove that I am), given my knowledge of the subject, I have more expertise.

Go ahead. Keep striking my edits from the Article. Keep slamming my titles in what can only be viewed as "Revenge Editing", for which Wikipedia is becoming increasingly known. Keep cyber-bullying the subjects of your living biographies. I will not back down. I will show you up for the anonymous tyrants you are. And, hopefully, my small voice of protest will be privileged enough to echo with the likes of Andrew Keen, Nicholas Carr and Jaron Lanier.

I can't wait to see what you will do with the reviews of 404, my next novel, which deals with this very subject, and which -- as you can imagine -- will now feature Wikipedia more tellingly. Your ongoing repression only adds to my authority, and feeds my ability to promote the book by pointing to this Talk Page. To quote another iconoclastic character who tells it like it is: "Go ahead. Make my day." Sandom (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

Mr. Sandom, you said: "While I am all for a balanced approach to things, it is completely unacceptable to selectively choose (at your end) one particular review that is mediocre at best [...]" It wasn't me who selectively chose that one particular review. It was you.

[NOTE: Yes, I chose the review, and you chose how to edit it down. That's the point, Huon. It's not the review selection that matters. It's what you did with it. See? JGS]

You apparently were quite happy with that review as long as you were the one to selectively (mis)quote it. This alone should serve as evidence that you're violating our COI guidelines.

[NOTE: Again, I didn't misquote it -- unless you mean because I messed up the ellipsis. Big deal. Who cares about an error in punctuation? 'The real point is how you chose to truncate the quote, and to mix the copy around. See "Update to Awards re Kiss me, I’m Dead and the complete Kirkus review of The Wave, without any cuts by Wikipedia's editors", below.' JGS]

You also claim I "elected to strike" this:

The Washington Post said, "(J.G. Sandom) writes with a precision and delicacy unusual for YA fiction," and called the novel, "a subtle gem."

Not true; it wasn't me who removed that. When I removed the same text, it didn't yet have the correct sources. You have repeatedly accused me of lying and of bad faith; when you accuse others, you should maybe show a little more diligence yourself.

[NOTE: You are right, Huon. I used the wrong "Washington Post" citation; easy to do since they're back to back. It's been fixed. Oops. See "Update to Awards re Kiss me, I’m Dead and the complete Kirkus review of The Wave, without any cuts by Wikipedia's editors", below. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Much appreciated. It was an error...not an attempt to somehow hoodwink Wikipedia! I will make every attempt to show more diligence henceforth. And now that I'm spending way too much time trying to defend myself on Wikipedia, I am beginning to get the hang of it; i.e. yes, it wasn't you who removed it. It was one of your compatriots at Wikipedia. Again, sorry I failed to notice the other anonymous handle. JGS]

I have removed various award nominations and consolation prizes that were not verifiable from the given sources, and I have added the pen name. While I was at it, I also added the "subtle gem" quote you seemed so fond of, but there's no need to belabor the fact that Ms. Ward really liked your novel in multiple paragraphs. Huon (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

[NOTE: Thank you, Huon. I appreciate it. But if I belabored it, it was only because you were so resistant to using it, striking it out on three (3) separate occasions, even though the citation was fine. And while the reviews were "not verifiable" before, they are now . . . and yet you still refuse to post them. So, it doesn't really seem to be about citation strength, does it? JGS] Sandom (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Huon. I have not accused you of lying. Perhaps you are projecting a bit here. Look, I grew up the victim of prejudice and bullying abroad and, as a result, I go from 0 to 60 when I see what I consider bullying from monolithic centers of power (like Wikipedia), whether it's bullying of someone else or of me. That's just who I am. If I got hot under the collar when you joined the conversation, that's why. If my reaction to you caused you to get hot too, I'm sorry. That was not my intent. I believe the entire Wikipedia community should weigh in on this, not just you, and not just me. Let the chips fall where they may. I think your desire to cut back the references to the other awards my book was nominated for is churlish, but that's just me. No, I didn't win any of those awards; never claimed I did. But Kiss Me, I'm Dead was nominated for all of the awards I mentioned, even if you can't find proof to that effect, and that's a distinct honor I shall always cherish as a writer. If you'd written a book and it too was nominated for these awards, you'd probably be proud of them too. The book came out a long time ago, and sites change, as you know. So, frankly, I may never find links to support the existence of those nominations. Believe it or not, it's really not that important to me, Huon. I know, and those who are in the business know, so who cares what the few dozen or few hundred people who look at this Article know or care. No one cares! LOL If I come out of this whole fracas knowing that there is one Wikipedia editor in California who is willing to reveal who he is, and who is a voice of reasonableness in an unreasonable world, then -- in my view -- I've come out ahead in this exchange...and so has Wikipedia. As someone who has been in the digital business since 1984, as someone who has helped -- even in some small way -- to devise ways to monetize the web through advertising, without which it would never have grown, I actually care about where the Net goes. I have a sense of responsibility for its development, justified or not. I am not a fan of Web 2.0. I fret about the tyranny of the majority as described by John Adams, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill. (See your own Wikipedia entry at: Tyranny of the majority#cite note-1) And I think the anonimity inherent in Wikipedia is a plague. But that's me. And, God knows, I don't have a monopoly on insight or wisdom. I'm stumbling through the darkness just like the rest of the world. Just like you, my friend. Sandom (talk)J.G. Sandom —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I was wrong (sorry!): You didn't accuse me of lying, but of calling you a liar. That was still incorrect, though, and you provided no evidence upon request, nor did you retract that accusation.

[NOTE: As I state in the following paragraph: Implying, not calling. JGS]

Anyway, Wikipedia requires its content to be verfiable from reliable sources. Your book may well have won all those nominations, I'll gladly accept your word for that (and of course I understand your pride in that accomplishment) – but for a Wikipedia article, your word (or mine) is not enough. I've seen you've provided a link to a blog post for the YALSA nomination; I'll take a look at that later (it's getting pretty late over here). Huon (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

[NOTE: See "Update to Awards re Kiss me, I’m Dead and the complete Kirkus review of The Wave, without any cuts by Wikipedia's editors", below. I never asked you to take my word for it. I asked you to take Wikipedia's word for it. After all, the references to all of those nominations have been on the Article Page for a long, long time now. Clearly, someone (before you) at Wikipedia inspected them and realized they pointed via links to credible sources...otherwise, they wouldn't have made it into Wikipedia in the first place! Your actions -- i.e. expunging them due to bad links -- does not simply call into question my integrity. It calls into question the integrity of whomever it was at Wikipedia who approved them originally. That's the point, you see, Huon. It's not just me your actions slammed; it's your compatriots and Wikipedia itself that's been denigrated by your summary deletions of heretofore approved citations. JGS]

Really, Huon. I don't want to have to go back and forth with you about this any longer. It seems painfully obvious to me (and to all of my fans) that your language implies (if it doesn't state it precisely; you're clearly not stupid!) that my daughter didn't post the updated copy in the associated Article Page. It was this ad hominem attack, questioning my integrity, that precipitated the ill will so clearly apparent in this exchange. As I told you, my daughter added this copy based on what I thought was an old version of the Article Page. At first I was uncertain; now, she has admitted it. Enough said, Huon. Let it go. I have. I'm no longer upset that you implied I was not being honest. I've tried to look at it from your point of you, and while I can't say I would have done the same thing, I can certainly understand why you might have thought so. Let's just chalk it up to a misunderstanding. Can you do that?

References

Attention J. G. Sandom

Mr. Sandom,

I just left a message on your talk page. I encourage you to calm down, read my message, and stop acting in what I perceive to be a disruptive fashion. If you continue, an administrator may well block you. I won't, as I'm not an administrator. Just an ordinary editor, not anonymous. Jim Heaphy Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got your message, Mr. Heaphy, and I have responded to it. Let me take this opportunity to thank you for taking time out of your weekend to address this issue. I found your note to be both reasonable and polite. I have suggested a compromise around the Author section of this Article. I hope you agree that it is a sensible way to address this fracas. Believe me: I too have better things to do with my life!

Best wishes,

J.G. Sandom Sandom (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC) J.G. Sandom

"A rose is like a good business deal, with a thorn for every compromise." From Gospel Truths

I have been instructed to present a compromise to the copy in the Author section of this article here, in this location, on this Talk Page, rather than on my personal talk page. Please forgive me for posting it to the wrong location; I am not a Wikipedia expert. I believe this language expresses both positive and negative notes about my work and, thus, I hope it meets with Wikipedia's standards.

So, here goes (in blue):

Sandom is the author of nine novels.

Ranked one of the Top Ten Children's Books of 2006 by the Washington Post, Kiss Me, I'm Dead (originally released under the title The Unresolved) was nominated for a Young Adult Library Services Association—YALSA 2007 Teens' Top Ten, the only book award recommended and awarded solely by teens. The novel was named a 2007 Association of Jewish Libraries Notable Book for Teens by the Sydney Taylor Book Award Committee, which recognized only six works in Jewish teen literature in 2007. The novel was also nominated for the 2006 Cybils literary awards, and for the 2007 Best Books for Young Adults (BBYA) by the American Library Association. The Washington Post said, "(J.G. Sandom) writes with a precision and delicacy unusual for YA fiction," and called the novel, "a subtle gem."

Sandom's most recent novel, The Wave, was reissued in June 2010 by Cornucopia Press. Kirkus Reviews lauded the story's pacing, concluding: "A story with enough manic energy to be worthy of a nuclear explosion and enough to render moot any structural weaknesses in its architecture."

The review from the Post is positive. The review from Kirkus includes language about my novel's alleged "structural weaknesses." One good. One crummy. If this meets with your approval, I can finally get out of my house and get some brunch.

Thanks for your consideration.

J.G. Sandom Sandom (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC) J.G. Sandom

I do not intend to comment on the proposal content-wise at this point. However, I suggest you go get some brunch because it may take some time to reach a consensus on your proposal. There's no urgency to changing the article; there rarely is any urgency on Wikipedia articles. So please be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

To Jim Heaphy (Cullen³²⁸): I have been contacted by someone on my blog who tells me s/he tried to post a change to the article about me and it was deleted by HUON. Jim, they have asked me the following question: "Since when is a quote from a documented book review inferior to a comment interpreting that same review?" Frankly, I don't know how to answer that. The quote the reader/fan uses from Kirkus mentions the same "stock bad guys" line that HUON insists on using. Can you help me? Having demonstrated his/her bias already on this Talk page and through his/her actions (demonstrating COI), I'm surprised HUON is still able to make these kind of edits. Speaks volumes about Wikipedia. I would have contacted HUON directly, but given our previous exchanges, it seemed pointless. Yours, Jim, is one of the few truly balanced and reasonable voices I've heard at Wikipedia. Any suggestions?Sandom (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That review lauded some aspects of your work and criticized others. We currently summarize both the praise and the criticism, both backed up by quotes from the review itself. 2605:6000:fec0:2c00:55f:b06b:e1eb:cd8a (and other editors before) removed most of the criticism (there was no context to that "stock bad guys" line any more; note how the "Instances of sloppiness" part was hidden in an ellipsis) and added another dose of praise instead. That's not a neutral summary of what the review says about your work; thus I reverted 2605:6000's edit. Huon (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that Huon has described the reasons behind the recent edits well. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy obligates us to accurately summarize what reliable sources say, both positive and negative. Paraphrasing is just as acceptable as quoting, and often even better, as extensive quoting raises concerns about copyright infringement. You accuse Huon of COI, Sandom. What evidence do you have that someone is paying Huon to edit Wikipedia to make you look bad? I note that Huon has over 25,000 edits here, as do I, and has contributed to over 10,000 pages on a wide variety of topics. That it the furthest thing from the pattern of a COI editor, who usually focus on a handful of related pages. I encourage you to assume good faith of a highly experienced editor, unless you have rock solid evidence to the contrary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, (Cullen³²⁸) I cannot assume good faith from Huon as he has historically not assumed good faith about my behaviours and intentions on this very Talk page, thereby displaying a partisan bent. It is this bias which makes me accuse him of a COI and of being unfit to edit this article henceforth. I have never accused him of taking money or of being paid by anyone; that's a smokescreen, Jim. But bias and the COI that bias implies comes in many forms. (In the same way that you "banish" those Wikipedia readers whom you consider to be waging edit wars, or who show COI, editors who have demonstrated bias regarding certain subjects or who have made ad hominem accusations not grounded in fact should be prohibited from editing said articles; what's good for the goose, after all.) In short, the evidence you state you require is this Talk page itself. Regarding the quote from the actual review, it is disingenuous to imply that these few lines represent a copyright infringement. Should Huon wish to add the additional few words about my editor's sloppiness in editing the original release of this novel (no longer relevant as these typos and other instances of sloppiness have since been corrected in all other editions), please feel free to do so. For reasons I have already stated, and which you yourself characterized as "good points", I would much rather provide readers of Wikipedia with the true and unadulterated version of the review, featuring no interpretive bias or personal animus, than rely upon Huon's characterization. (In an effort not to obscure the truth, I have provided you with the full review on this very Talk page.) And, clearly, I am not alone. I did not make this edit to the article, subsequently reverted by Huon. Others have attempted to make edits, again based upon actual reviews vs. Wikipedia interpretations of said reviews, and been denied by Huon. That said, in Huon's defense, his biased reversions are far better than the wholesale deletion of comments by Wikipedia editors which this Talk page has experienced in the past (i.e. Jeff Einstein's comments). I guess I should be grateful for that! I'll be sure to pass your comments on to the party who alerted me to Huon's latest reversion. Again, thanks for your interest in this matter, Jim. You have to date been balanced and fair in your handling of this matter, and your bravery in not hiding behind an anonymous mask is commendable.Sandom (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Update to Awards re Kiss me, I’m Dead and the complete Kirkus review of The Wave, without any cuts by Wikipedia's editors

I don't understand why, exactly, but the following comments (in blue), which I added to this section last night (hence the title of this section -- which, strangely, was not altered) were summarily deleted this morning! Let me add them once again. Whoever is deleting my comments, please stop it! It's important that we keep a record of this entire exchange. It's one thing to edit/delete copy from the Article Page, but I was under the impression that the Talk Page was off limits unless there is a question of libel. Is there? If there is, it would seem that I am the injured party since it's my work, my career, and my life really that is being documented on this site by the hive. Please, please, please, let the Wikipedia community as a whole have a chance to weigh in on this! All I ask for is a level playing field. Luckily, I posted a copy of the missing Comment on my Facebook page. Look for the Highlighted Update: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=736219666

Well, it seems that my fans were very busy today after I went out for brunch and to a local music festival. They took it upon themselves to scour the Web in order to document the awards won by my novel, Kiss Me, I’m Dead (formerly titled The Unresolved and released under my pen name, T.K. Welsh).

Clearly, the links which appeared to these awards on Wikipedia must have been active and live at some point. How otherwise would Wikipedia have accepted them before, and permitted their use in the Article Page about me? But, alas, over time, the links changed, and now -- although clearly active and live in the past -- Wikipedia needed them to be updated to document their legitimacy. [NOTE: All of you individuals out there who have linked citations on your live biography Article Pages, you'd better have your fans or some other supporters out there keep them updated and live or Wikipedia may do the same thing to you -- strip you of the reference altogether, regardless of their legitimacy in the past. BEWARE!]

Here, then, are the results of my fans' efforts. Thank you so much for going to bat for me after I posted notice of this issue here on Facebook. You are the best! I have another YA book in the works, though it won't be done for some time now. And note that it's another historical YA title -- this time set in ancient Britain!

[NOTE: If these comments in blue which I wrote when I got home yesterday are somehow inappropriate, and if that is the reason they were summarily deleted from this Talk Page, please let me know immediately...rather than just cutting them. How can I learn the rules of this community if you don't inform me of them?]

Ranked one of the Top Ten Children's Books of 2006 by the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120800009.html), Kiss Me, I'm Dead (originally released under the title The Unresolved) was nominated for a Young Adult Library Services Association—YALSA 2007 Teens' Top Ten (http://yalsa.ala.org/blog/2007/09/), the only book award recommended and awarded solely by teens. The novel was named a 2007 Association of Jewish Libraries Notable Book for Teens by the Sydney Taylor Book Award Committee (http://www.jewishlibraries.org/main/Portals/0/AJL_Assets/documents/recommended/notables/2007notables.pdf), which recognized only six works in Jewish teen literature in 2007. The novel was also nominated for the 2006 Cybils literary awards (http://dadtalk.typepad.com/cybils/2006/11/the_nominations_2.html#more). The Washington Post said, "(J.G. Sandom) writes with a precision and delicacy unusual for YA fiction,” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701208.html) and called the novel, "a subtle gem." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903291.html)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, my loyal readers. You made my day!

And here, without any misleading cuts or interpretations by Wikipedia's editors, is the Kirkus review of The Wave.

[NOTE: Please notice the word "And" at the beginning of this paragraph. Clearly, the word "And" here makes no sense unless this paragraph were preceded by something...as it is now. Unlike the preceding copy in blue, the rest of the copy, below, was not deleted this morning. I have also added a response (in black) to Mr. Heaphy.]

Sandom (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

KIRKUS REVIEW

"In Sandom’s doomsday thriller, a cryptanalyst and an oceanographer combine forces in an attempt to thwart a terrorist plan to inundate the eastern seaboard of the United States.

"What you need is something to make the Americans veer away from peace. Something abominable," says jihadist El Aqrab, who has something abominable in mind: a mega-tsunami sweeping west across the Atlantic, generated by the aftereffects of his very own nuclear detonation. El Aqrab is a mean and devious dude; though he 'destroys with an aesthetic sensibility,' as a Mossad agent notes, he is a pure force of darkness. Just so, he is in keeping with most of Sandom’s other characters: very bad, like El Aqrab, or very good, like code-breaker Decker ('the gentle features of a poet'), or good and gorgeous, like grad-student Swenson ('To be intelligent and to look like this? It was a fucking outrage.'). His characterization drifts into caricature, as stark and unambiguous as advertising copy. Sandom’s strength lies in the verve of his story, with writing that has both muscle, in its pacing and violence, and a measure of brains as it goes about knitting Islamic calligraphy into the action, as well as making skirmishes into cryptography, vulcan stimulation and the higher physics of radiation and isotope decay without force-feeding the dense material to the reader. Instances of sloppiness–actually, so sloppy they seem to have a hidden agenda: 'Yung' for Jung, 'Younkers' for Yonkers, 'College Way' for Columbia University’s College Walk–are simply steamrolled by the tale’s gathering momentum. After a rather stately start, punctuated by little flurries of menace and barbarism from the stock bad guys, and a critical massing of feints and distractions, the story races from improbable to crazywild, all in good fun, with Sandom always one step ahead–and who cares if you can’t tell a 'temperature-compensated quartz oscillator pressure transducer' from a toaster oven?

"A story with enough manic energy to be worthy of a nuclear explosion and enough to render moot any structural weaknesses in its architecture."

Now, compare this to the truncated version published by Wikipedia editor Huon:

"Kirkus Reviews said Sandom's characterizations of heroes and "stock bad guys" were drifting into caricature, but lauded the story's pacing, concluding: 'A story with enough manic energy to be worthy of a nuclear explosion and enough to render moot any structural weaknesses in its architecture.'"

Chided as I was for editing the review down to only feature the "good parts", to me it seems that -- other than the spelling issues the reviewer had with the book's publisher/editor -- Huon went out of his way to focus on the "not so good" parts; e.g. the use of the phrase "drifts into caricature", which sounds pretty crummy without the rest of the sentence -- "His characterization drifts into caricature, as stark and unambiguous as advertising copy." You see? It's not the "stock bad guys" who were "drifting into caricature," as he states. It's "(my) characterization which drifts into caricature (yes, there's a difference -- at least there is to a writer). And when you add the concluding phrase: "as stark and unambiguous as advertising copy," it takes on a whole other meaning. Hey, I was a copywriter for years. I'm proud if you think my writing is like ad copy. That's what they say about James Patterson too...and look how well he's done! Further, the phrase "stock bad guys" that Huon claims erroneously were allegedly drifting into caricature actually appears at the end of the review in the sentence that reads: "After a rather stately start, punctuated by little flurries of menace and barbarism from the stock bad guys, and a critical massing of feints and distractions, the story races from improbable to crazywild, all in good fun, with Sandom always one step ahead–and who cares if you can’t tell a "temperature-compensated quartz oscillator pressure transducer" from a toaster oven?" Well, "stock bad guys" takes on a whole new dimension when this phrase comes after, "After a rather stately start," followed by, "punctuated by little flurries of menace and barbarism from the stock bad guys..." Well, you get the idea, now that you have the whole piece in front of you. Of course there are "stock bad guys" in this context. It's a thriller. It's "stock" or traditional to have bad guys in thrillers. The meaning, as you can see, becomes totally different in this context.

Really, Huon, I want to thank you for forcing me to review the whole review again after all this time. It's really pretty damned good (other than the crummy spelling, which my editor should have caught). In fact, it's so good that I think Wikipedia should not mislead the public by truncating it as Huon did. In my view, it should be quoted in its entirety. That way, no one could possibly misinterpret it.

What do you think? If you have a comment, please feel free to contact me at my website. And, if you wish, you can do so with complete anonymity, just as the editors of Wikipedia enjoy.

Sandom (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC) J.G. Sandom (AKA T.K. Welsh)

Although I think that you make some good points, there is no way that we can quote the review in its entirety. Quoting a sentence or two is fine as fair use, but lengthy quotes are considered copyright infringements, even if properly attributed. Wikipedia is strict about copyright. If someone wants to read more than a couple of phrases or a sentence or two, they can click the link and read the entire review. I also suggest that you read WP:TLDR. Passionate editors, new to Wikipedia, are sometimes prone make their points in walls of lengthy text, which experienced editors are reluctant to read and ponder. I currently have 3,104 Wikipedia pages on my watch list. Though many of these pages are inactive, many others have swirling controversies. I try to monitor them several times a day.

In my view, it is best to be succinct and propose changes in small, discrete chunks that can be easily absorbed and processed.

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page. I appreciate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Heaphy (Cullen328):

You're right, of course. I should have know about the copyright issue. You make an excellent point. Here, then, is what I would recommend for the Author section of the attendant Article Page. Please let me know if this meets with Wikipedia's citation and non-COI standards. As you can see, all the reviews have adequate citation links, and they are -- at least in my view -- balanced.

You'll also undoubtedly notice that I've added a new review -- also balanced, I believe -- for The Wall Street Murder Club after looking at dozens and dozens of Articles about other writers/authors at Wikipedia. Now, there are a total of 3 (out of the 9 books I've written). If anything, I believe I have been extremely restrained! And while I was drawn into this imbroglio when I was alerted to the possible COI posting at the top of the Article, I really would prefer not to be the one to edit or change it, even though your rules say that's my right. I would much rather be writing new fiction than editing these pages, but I truly believe that if I don't offer up at least a small handful of acceptable reviews, my fans will probably add dozens and dozens for all 9 of my books, and that would be worse for both me and Wikipedia. Or, they'll start making pages for each and every book (as I notice is common @ Wikipedia), and I don't think that makes any particular sense. Or, would you find that preferable? Frankly, I have no idea! But given your balanced and even-handed approach thus far, Mr. Heaphy, I'll be happy to follow your guidance on this matter.

Thanking you in advance,

J.G. Sandom

Author

Sandom is the author of nine novels. He writes novels for adults under his own name, and has used the pen name T.K. Welsh for some of his young adult (YA) and children's books.

Ranked one of the Top Ten Children's Books of 2006 by the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120800009.html), his debut novel for young adults Kiss Me, I'm Dead (originally released under the title The Unresolved) was nominated for a Young Adult Library Services Association—YALSA 2007 Teens' Top Ten (http://yalsa.ala.org/blog/2007/09/), the only book award recommended and awarded solely by teens. The novel was named a 2007 Association of Jewish Libraries Notable Book for Teens by the Sydney Taylor Book Award Committee (http://www.jewishlibraries.org/main/Portals/0/AJL_Assets/documents/recommended/notables/2007notables.pdf), which recognized only six works in Jewish teen literature in 2007. The novel was also nominated for the 2006 Cybils literary awards (http://dadtalk.typepad.com/cybils/2006/11/the_nominations_2.html#more). The Washington Post said, "(J.G. Sandom) writes with a precision and delicacy unusual for YA fiction,” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701208.html) and called the novel, "a subtle gem." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903291.html)

Of The Wall Street Murder Club, Kirkus Reviews said, "(Sandom) makes the first half of this sordid tale a Big Apple Deliverance, endowing New York culture with all the corrosively dehumanizing power of Dickey's wild nature. The second half is considerably more predictable, though never less than slickly entertaining, right down to the last, inevitable twist. (Film rights to Warner Brothers--and there's no mystery why.)" (https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/jg-sandom/the-hunting-club/)

Sandom's most recent novel, The Wave, was reissued in June 2010 by Cornucopia Press. Kirkus Reviews said: "Sandom’s strength lies in the verve of his story...races from improbable to crazywild, all in good fun, with Sandom always one step ahead...A story with enough manic energy to be worthy of a nuclear explosion and enough to render moot any structural weaknesses in its architecture."

---

Assuming this meets with your approval, I would greatly appreciate it if you or someone else at Wikipedia would post it. After all, I believe that if I try and edit this Author section again, I will be banished from editing henceforth...at least, temporarily, right?

Furthermore, I think you might want to consider removing the "potential COI" listing at the top of the associated Article Page. As a number of your editors have now gone through the Article with a pretty fine-toothed comb, I don't think it's required anymore. Plus, it just points to the Talk Page and I'm not sure it's in Wikipedia's interest, or in the interest of your readers/users to see how the "sausage" of this particular Article was made. I don't particularly care any longer, mind you. But I don't think some of your editors come out looking particularly fair. Of course, this is totally up to you. It's your sandbox. I just happen to be playing in it.

Again, thanks for your help. Best wishes, J.G. Sandom Sandom (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC) J.G. Sandom

I disagree with removing the COI tag until someone with a comb actually checks this article. The article as it is is still very biased, and will take an experienced editor to get it sorted before removing that tag. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought that several editors had already viewed this Article, and used a fine-toothed comb. My mistake. I apologize. I am still getting used to Wikipedia's standards. Thanks for your input, though, TheOriginalSoni. I welcome the help of an experienced editor, as you suggest. And thanks for not summarily deleting any of this Talk Page! Much appreciated. Sandom (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC) J.G. Sandom

Just to point it out, I never deleted anything from the talk page. I just added a box and put everything not related to this article into it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I never suggested it was you, TheOriginalSoni, who personally deleted my and Jeff Einstein's comments from this Talk Page. As most everything goes on behind closed doors here at Wikipedia, or behind anonymous pseudonyms, I have no idea who at Wikipedia struck these passages. However, I recommend that -- should you have the capability to find out who did it -- the individual or the individuals responsible for said summary deletions be censured. Thanks for your feedback, TheOriginalSoni. Much appreciated. I have no beef with you. I think you've been largely very reasonable and instructive in your handling of this situation, and I appreciate being "schooled" by you and Jim Heaphy (AKA Cullen). Slowly but surely, I am learning your culture! Thank you for your patience. Sandom (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC) J.G. Sandom

I never suggested it was you, TheOriginalSoni, who personally deleted my and Jeff Einstein's comments from this Talk Page.

You did suggest so. Also, stop using multicolour comments, or to edit between other's comments. We reply at the bottom.

As most everything goes on behind closed doors here at Wikipedia

Thats more further from the truth than ever. Use the See history button at the top.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• And please stop using colour in comments. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not suggest it was you, TheOriginalSoni. I didn't know who it was and, now, I can't find it on the View History tab. Hmmmmmmm. And I have only used colored text (as Cullen did above) to help readers distinguish between your comments and mine. Really? Can you tell me who deleted Jeff Einstein's comments?

If you want to help anyone distinguish, just add your reply below theirs, and sign after you comment. Thats makes it clear enough for our readers. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, TheOriginalSoni. Thanks for the tip. I have removed the colored comments pretty much everywhere except where I felt it was worth keeping to distinguish two comments made at separate times. Also, you never did answer my question, who deleted Jeff Einstein's comments? Sandom (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you still suggesting a change to the article? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Copyedit

I cut stuff, checked sources, and removed the COI tag. Unless anyone has a problem with the quality of the sources, I think we're in good shape. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have amended the paragraph in light of your concern. Every statement in the paragraph is now fully documented. Therefore, I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovergirl1 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of the statements were irrelevant to Sandom, others (especially when he left Rapp Digital) weren't supported by the given sources. I have fixed that. Huon (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mr. Huon. I have fixed the faulty citation that was not supported by the given sources, and reinserted the line about OgilvyInteractive being named "Best Interactive Ad Agency" by Adweek while Sandom ran it. Seems relevant to me.170.20.11.1 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Rovergirl1 (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the editorial suggestions, Mr. Huon. I have fixed the language.Rovergirl1 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes in the talk page before you attempt reintroduce them. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to add the following, as Mr. Houn seemed to suggest ("bills itself" isn't "became") on the view history tab at the top of the article.

"Sandom built OgilvyInteractive to $300 million in billings, and the agency began to bill itself as the world’s largest digital ad network. In 1998, under Sandom’s leadership, OgilvyInteractive was named "Best Interactive Ad Agency" of the year by Adweek, and won two premier Cyber Lions awards at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival."

I don't understand what's the big deal? All of the sources are solid, the footnotes were correct, and this info is relevant to the subject. Sandom was in charge of the agency when it won the award. The award is a big deal in the advertising world. How is this not relevant??? I'm new to Wikipedia but this sure seems funny that you would keep cutting this stuff. Now that I see how much your editors cut things, plus after reading this really, really long Talk Page, I guess I know why. So I don't think I'll bother anymore.Rovergirl1 (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the bar of editorial standards for stuff like this is a bit low, so long as we aren't saying anything negative. But here a few issues with the sources... This appears to be a column, no editorial standards. This is an interview, again, no editorial standards. This is some kind of index or a primary source, we'd like a secondary source to establish relevance of the award. You're his daughter or whatever he mentioned earlier? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

TippyGoomba, I have found new sources. There are plenty of them. Below is a fixed paragraph.

From January 1997 through October 1999, Sandom served as Director of Interactive at OgilvyOne Worldwide, a division of Ogilvy & Mather. Sandom built OgilvyInteractive to $300 million in billings, and, under his leadership, OgilvyInteractive was named Top New Media Agency of 1998 by AdAge, and won a 1999 Grand Clio and two 1998 CyberLions from the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival, both interactive firsts. Sandom is widely credited for turning Ogilvy’s digital offering around.

Also, there is http://www.thefreelibrary.com/OgilvyInteractive+and+AsiaNetCorp+Join+Forces+in+Asia+Strengthening...-a063122648 to show that OgilvyInteractive became the world's largest interactive network when Sandom ran it. And here: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/2256572/cyberstars-ogilvy-ibm-top-new-media-awards. But this you have to pay for.

If this is up to WP standard, I will post. Let me know.

No, I am not his daughter! I like his books. That's funny. I'm not much younger than he is apparently. I work in publishing and run a horse farm and, like you, would like to stay anonymous. Thank you for your help. Rovergirl1 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In case you can't see footnote 21, TippyGoomba, here is the source: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/9272/?print#axzz2WBc4F1ck Thank you! 170.20.11.1 (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have not heard back from you for over two days regarding my suggested edit, I'm going to assume you're cool, TippyGoomba. I have posted the new sentence on the Article page as listed above. Rovergirl1 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as you're not saying bad things about Sandom or going off-topic, I'm not overly concerned. Since the previous edit was reverted, I wanted to give you a flavor of how things work and what we look for in terms of sources. If someone reverts you, we'll discuss some more. Otherwise, it looks good, thank you for your patience :) TippyGoomba (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Woops, it looks like you already got reverted. If the reverter doesn't comment, I'll check the sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help TippyGoomba! 170.20.11.1 (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Woops I wasn't logged in :) Rovergirl1 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point, you're on your way to being banned. You need to stop edit warring and address the objections raised in the edit summaries. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate: A source that doesn't mention Sandom cannot be used to support claims on Sandom's business success. At the very best that would be an original synthesis of published sources, something we should not engage in. Similarly, if you want to say that Sandom is "widely credited" with X you'd need a source that explicitly says so. If we just have a source that credits Sandom with X, we should attribute the credit to the source. Huon (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am so confused. :) I will try to be careful so I am not banned. Let's discuss. Although the reference does not mention Sandom by name, he was the Director of Interactive at the time, and therefore was in charge of and led the group which won the prize. No one is mentioned by name. They never are in these cases. Rovergirl1 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I just left you a warning on your talk page about your editing history at Wikipedia. At this point, I suggest you don't edit the article at all. If you want to suggest changes to the article, do it here. If someone other than you wants to implement them, they may do so. Otherwise, you're heading for a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:SYNTH. They don't mention Sandom by name, so we can't use it in the Sandom article. If you want to put "X did Y" in the article, you need a source that says exactly that. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you take this down, TheOriginalSoni? What is wrong with these citations? Of course, they don't refer to the Washington Post ranking. The other citations, like the Cybils award, refer to other awards the book was nominated for. I have removed the note that "Kiss Me, I’m Dead" was only one of six books recognized by Association of Jewish Libraries Sydney Taylor Book Award Committee. The rest is straightforward information about the book, just as relevant as the Washington Post Top Ten, or the Cybils nomination. This seems very odd. I have kept the citations visible so you can check them yourself. These sources make it perfectly clear that Sandom's book was nominated. What else would you possibly need?

Ranked one of the Top Ten Children's Books of 2006 by the Washington Post,[3] his debut novel for young adults Kiss Me, I'm Dead (originally released under the title The Unresolved) was nominated for a Young Adult Library Services Association—YALSA 2007 Teens' Top Ten,[4]</ref> named a 2007 Association of Jewish Libraries Notable Book for Teens by the Sydney Taylor Book Award Committee,[5], and nominated for the 2006 Cybils literary awards.[6] The Washington Post said, "(Sandom) writes with a precision and delicacy unusual for YA fiction,”[7] and called the novel, "a subtle gem."[8] MirandaW3 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As no one has raised any issues or concerns about the recommended changes to this article about Sandom that I posted here at the beginning of July, I am going ahead with the edit. Clearly, if you had any problems with these documented changes, I should have heard by now. MirandaW3 (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear BBB23, the same Washington Post article cited in my edit establishes that Sandom and Welsh are the same author. Welsh is one of Sandom's pen names. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903291.html Also, why did you remove the list of his books? This is standard for all author articles. Please explain. MirandaW3 (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not in the first ref; it's in the second. I could swear I looked for it in the second, too, but either I didn't or I screwed up. My apologies for that. It would be good to establish the pen name more prominently so any source that cites to a book by his pen name won't be questioned. I'm not sure if it should be in the lead as an aka or at the beginning of the author section. You might look at other author articles that use pen names and see how they handle it, although, unfortunately, just because another article handles it in a certain way doesn't make it "correct". Which leads to the next issue. Generally speaking a list of an author's books in an article is a waste of space. One way to handle it is to put an external link to Worldcat in the article, which should have a list. The best thing to do is to discuss the author's books that have been sufficiently noteworthy to attract commentary by secondary sources. That adds some value to the article rather than just a plain list.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Bbb23. I will go ahead and make the change as you suggested. Regarding the list of his books, I think it works better as a list than an indirect reference. People interested in looking up Sandom @ Wikipedia would, I think, find it easier to see them in one place here. I hope you'll consider adding it back.MirandaW3 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia is cyber-bullying Sandom

Fyi, Sandom made a facebook post about the cyber-bullying he's faced here on May 18th. He also tweeted a link to the facebook post on the same date. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And that post was made before I took a hatchet to the article. The current version is Sandom-approved, as far as I can tell from this response to my edits. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandom is not being bullied, and this is old news. His posts of a month ago constituted, in my opinion, off-wiki canvassing to try to bring in allies to help him shape the Wikipedia article about him to a form that he approves. Those posts were not successful. I have reached out to Sandom to help him understand the norms of how Wikipedia operates. My door is open. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly he's not being bullied, sorry for the confusion. I was trying to be funny :)TippyGoomba (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. G. Sandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150116164048/http://www.bookreporter.com.asp1-14.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/authors/au-sandom-jg.asp to http://www.bookreporter.com.asp1-14.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/authors/au-sandom-jg.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)