Talk:Russ Nelson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quaker?

The article says "

His politics are both left and right of centre, as he is a pacifist Quaker[2] and a member of the Libertarian Party of the United States.

" . The WP article on Libertarian Party says it supports the right to bear arms. How Quaker is that, please? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How would the answer to this question be used to improve the article? RussNelson (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If a reputable published source indicated that he rejected this plank (the "right" to bear arms") in the Libertarian Party platform, it might prevent the deletion of the claim that "he is a pacifist Quaker", for which no reputable evidence is given. The use of the Welsh word for "Quaker" as the name of his company doesn't seem to me any evidence. I have noted Pacifist writings on your website but am not convinced. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 18:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A person does not have to agree with every platform of a political party to identify with it or be a member. —Pengo 00:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While most Quaker Yearly Meetings are "Broad Church" and no creed of beliefs are imposed, the sentiments outlined in Libertarian_Party_(United_States)#Platform, as well as the support for the "right to bear arms", would appear to be contrary to the core beliefs of the Religious Society of Friends, as expressed in its Testimonies. Has this person indicated dissent from other Libertarian tenets? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[nelson@desk nelson]$ whois quaker.org | grep Email
Registrant Email:nelson@crynwr.com
Admin Email:nelson@crynwr.com
Tech Email:nelson@crynwr.com
[nelson@desk nelson]$ 

No doubt that Quakers would read me out of meeting if they felt my views were unacceptable. That they haven't yet ought to be proof enough for everyone-1 that I'm a Quaker. RussNelson (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He has been making a living from Open Source support ever since then

The article says about the subject "He has been making a living from Open Source support ever since then...", but it seems hard to find a source independent from Nelson himself that verified this information.

Making a living from Open Source makes you "cool" in some circles, and that's why I believe we need a non-trivial source for such a claim. For instance, self-provided bios are not well know for their accuracy.

I any case, is it really important to mention this in the article, when apparently no reliable source seem to support this piece of trivia? --Damiens.rf 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked for a citation, and I gave you two. You don't like either one. Tough on you. Let somebody else revert it. You'd think that the OSI board wouldn't stand for a falsehood on its board bio page, but maybe you know less about them that I do. Time to get some other opinions here than yours and mine. RussNelson (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my concerns above. The "OSI board" wouldn't care to fact-check the mini-bio you provided them. They don't really care if their page is used to promote you, since that would indirectly also promote them. But Wikipedia has a higher standard. Please, consider reading WP:COI before edit-warring on this page. Some other opinions would be good. --Damiens.rf 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I asked you to let someone else revert it. You didn't, which gives me cause to accuse you of WP:COI. Note that I'm not editing the page -- just supplying a citation. YOU are editing the page, and YOU have some strange interest in me. Did I piss you off at some point in the past? You are editing Wikipedia using a pseudonym, so nobody knows if you have a COI or not. RussNelson (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I never met you, Sir. And had never heard about you before interacting with you at this site. I do have an interest in keeping Wikipedia free of disguised advertisement and self-promotion. --Damiens.rf 23:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that? You have no reputation for truth-telling to rely on, whereas I do. Clearly if you had an interest in creating a less-accurate article by deleting information about me, you would deny having one (and so you did.), so any denial is worthless. Now, you started this by asking for a citation. Fine. I supplied one. You didn't like it, so you reverted it. Fine. I supplied a different one. You didn't like THAT one either, so you reverted it. I'm going to supply three citations this time, and if you are honestly interested in an accurate article, you will leave them there until and unless SOME ONE ELSE (whom you have not invited to do so) removes them.

In light of your actions, I am starting to think that your interest is more than casual, but is more along the line of dislike. The fact that you are also editing the Freemacs article says that you aren't choosing these articles at random, but are instead targetting articles related to me. Your edits stink of WP:COI. You could show me that I am wrong by moving along to some other set of articles which actually NEEDS editing, pleaseandthankyousoverymuch. RussNelson (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. But, no, I won't stopping editing the article about you just because you want so.

There's a link from this article to the freemacs one, and that's probably how I got there.

Providing a bad source is just as bad as providing none.

There's no such thing as a "reputation for truth-telling". There are, instead, Reliable Sources.

If you so confident about your WP:COI theory, I invite you to post a complaint at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I mean, really!

And stop redding the bad sources to the article. --Damiens.rf 12:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let someone else revert this. You clearly have a COI. RussNelson (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, and again, I have asked you to stop removing material from this article, and to allow some other Wikipedia editor to express an opinion. Clearly we are having an edit war here, and the final disposition of these changes should be decided here. You edited boldly, and got reverted multiple times. You should now stop trying to change the article, let it stay as it was, and we can talk about it here. I simply will NOT accept some random person vandalizing my article. And yes, I consider adding {{cite}} after every fact about me to be vandalizing it, and abusing Wikipedia policy to make a point (which is itself against wikipedia policy). STOP MAKING THIS CHANGE, and talk about it here. RussNelson (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be much better taking this to the BLP noticeboard? The edits in question don't constitute the kind of "blatant vandalism" which WP:AUTO permits bio subjects to revert. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can the removal of unsourced/badly sourced content constitute a BLP issue? I thought BLP was more for the addition of unsourced (potentially defamatory) material. --Damiens.rf 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help#Contacts. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for me to ask that User:Damiens.rf stop making this edit and allow someone else to remove this material from my bio. Anybody else agree? If nobody chimes in, then I think the material should remain until somebody does. RussNelson (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this material has been removed with NO DISCUSSION on this page. Must I revert it again? What is the talk page for if not to resolve arguments? RussNelson (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not having the last word does not mean that someone isn't responding. To be honest, I think the last comment posted to your thread on the COI board is the most important thing here - feeling hard done by because other editors have apparently more lee-way to edit articles on one's own person that one does oneself is tough, but things are that way for a reason, and you have to assume that the invisible hand will eventually remedy this by itself. Removing material which isn't verified by secondary sources isn't vandalism, it's deletionism - and deletionism, so long as it's carried out within the boundaries of policy, is an accepted philosophy on WP. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MacPaint clone called Painter's Apprentice

Is this software something barely notable, that was used by someone or some distribution, or is this just something Mr. Nelson did someday? If it's just an obscure pet-project, I wonder why is it mentioned. Some source ever mention this software? --Damiens.rf 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no citations for this software. It was written by myself and Patrick Naughton, and published by Zenith Data Systems back in 1985. You know ... pre-history. I'm sure it was in their catalog, but I expect that none exist anymore. David Gubbins also was selling it back in 1990 at computer swap meets, but again, no reliable sources would have mentioned that. Feel free to delete it if deleting things that are true makes you happy. RussNelson (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned with the "truth"...Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources . Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset Since you have not provided one I think it can be safely deleted. Teapotgeorge (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the article should contain only material which is verifiable. Painter's Apprentice is published on Google Code. Anybody can look at painters-apprentice MS-DOS paint program and verify that it's my work. RussNelson (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I envision the day you will understand the difference between a third-party published source and self-published source. --Damiens.rf 04:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thursday, Damiens, that day has come! I already understand the difference. If an article says "X did Y", and you go look at Y, and it has X's fingerprints all over it, then no third-party published source is needed. So I must ask, do YOU understand that some things are their own verification? RussNelson (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can easily verify that you claim to have authored an Mac Paint clone, that you claim to make a living from Open Source support for some time, that you identifies yourself as a "pacifist Quaker", and a lot more. But we're not writing Russ Nelson's views about himself. :) C'mon Russ, everybody writes pieces of software once and there, but unless someone somewhere takes sometime to write something about that software, this is not something we need to have on our biographies. Have this Paint-clone ever been talked about by someone not related to you? Like an independent software magazine or something like that? Does anyone other than you consider it a mac-paint-clone? --Damiens.rf 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, puhleeze! claim is a weasel word. If you know anything about Weasels then you know you don't want to be using weasel words. For someone who is a notable computer programmer, their notability hinges on the programs they wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussNelson (talk • contribs)

So far, we have had limited success in finding notable programs you wrote. From what I know, you're "notable" for once being the OSI president, and not for being a computer programmer. --Damiens.rf 11:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And as far as I can tell, saying "Mr. X claims to have done X1 and X2" does not includes weasel wording, unlike "Some people say Mr. X is Y1 and Y2."--Damiens.rf 11:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just admit that you're incompetent to edit my bio page since you are unfamiliar with the subject material? PC Magazine gave me an award of excellence for my packet drivers. RussNelson (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, be civil. Could you elaborate about this PC Magazine award? This seems something that really deserves to be mentioned. --Damiens.rf 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility is the default, but you've given up any claim to civility, e.g. by being incompetent. No, I can't tell you about this PC Magazine award; anything I tell you about this award comes from an unreliable source with a WP:COI. Even if I scan in the page of the magazine or the award plaque, you'll claim that it's photoshopped. Why should I bother? RussNelson (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not being cooperative. I would say you have something to learn in the area teamwork. --Damiens.rf 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to give cooperation to get it. I've asked you not to edit my bio page because of our earlier conflict in editing Eric S. Raymond. You declined to cooperate. I am now declining to cooperate with you. I would say you have something to learn about eliciting cooperation! RussNelson (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to believe that cooperation includes people doing what you tell them to do, and that's why I honestly believe you have problems in working in cooperative projects. --Damiens.rf 14:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh, yeah, that is EXACTLY what cooperation involves. You do what I say, and in return, I do what you say. Your failure to understand that cooperation is a two-way street is part of the reason why you are having such trouble editing my bio page to make it look exactly how you want. RussNelson (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know Russell is male? Has a third party verified that he has a cock? Better start referring to him as "it" until we have a third party check for a Y chromosome. Clearly "it" has written the software, and there's evidence of the announcement from 1991 and there's the source code available and it's mentioned in his biography which was accepted by various third parties. Considering these sources to be "self published" is being a little completely stupidly overly pedantic. Damiens.rf: Please stop being a dick. —Pengo 12:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, some of the news articles used as source implies he's a man. But we don't need to source such things. Having written a Mac Paint clone is a greater claim, and We would benefit from a citation from someone else (uninvolved with Mr. Nelson) calling it a clone.

Also incidentally, the available source code does not compile. --Damiens.rf 13:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By your line of argument, those third parties could have been told by Russell himself that he is a man, so it's just self publishing.

Also are you aware of why the strict BLP policy exists? It's because Jimmy Wales is afraid of being sued by the person in question because someone wrote something wrong about them. Clearly that's not an issue here, and the claims are not at all incredible. —Pengo 21:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we may run in a BLP problem here, since Nelson himself is the one wanting to include unsourced information.

By the way, I really liked the way you worked the Mac-clone thing in the article. --Damiens.rf 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unsourced?" There are three sources, none of which you like, all of which are arguable, none of which you are willing to argue, which leads me to the conclusion that you think you wouldn't win that argument. If you can't (or won't) defend your edit in the Talk page, you shouldn't be making it in the Article. RussNelson (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all links are valid sources, you should know that at this point. Also, I'm not here to win arguments. I'm here to write a neutral, free encyclopedia. --Damiens.rf 11:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you should stop editing my page. We have had editing conflicts in the past, thus you are not capable of making WP:NPOV edits to my page. No, really, go obsess on somebody else, KTHXBYE. RussNelson (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. And, for god's sake, cool down. --Damiens.rf 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You claim that you are neutral, yet you can't leave my bio page alone. Hardly non-sequitur. I'm calm. You're the one who has some sort of sick obsession with me. RussNelson (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Drop the personal attcks immediately. If you're being baited, the solution is to take a break and cool off, not to try to shout someone down. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the reason Painter's Apprentice seems like an odd, less-than-notable project in this article is because you deleted the context around it. —Pengo 13:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering I only deleted badly sourced material, this may indicate that no known reliable source ever mentioned this Painter's Apprentice, what would make it less-than-notable. --Damiens.rf 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, but since we're back to assuming good faith I'm sure you will correct this mistake (last posting). RussNelson (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Qmail / Packet Driver Specification / Crynwr

I'm more aware of Mr. Nelson for the above items (He has been a significant figure in the QMail user community - helping to make it more useable/approachable to the general sysadmin public since the primary author didn't have time / resources, he implemented the specification used for networking much TCP/IP software on the MSDOS and compatible platforms, and he's maintained an archive of software drivers for this.) I don't particularly feel like dredging up the various citations at the moment but if someone else does, I'm sure he's written up somewhere in Google Books / Scholar on this.

—Hobart (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation objection

Toddst1 objects to one or more citations, but has reverted without saying exactly which ones, and has not explained the steps that she has undergone to attempt to find better citations. I do not believe that her objections are serious, but are instead vandalism. I will continue to revert until she uses the talk page to detail her objections. While it is fair to expect that an article may be improved, it is not fair to insert spurious requests for improvement without explaining what improvement is expected.

She also objects to several self-published references. These are negative references, not positive ones. I agree that there is a problem with people publishing puffery about themselves, but how many people references the stupid things they have said? Probably not many, and it's probably not a problem. RussNelson (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources and primary sources are under WP:V as they present significant challenges. If there are no reliable sources, specifically reliable third-party, non-primary sources available to back up the information, then it needs to be removed - especially with respect to a biography of a living person. Toddst1 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As almost 24 hours have passed without comment, I'm restoring those valid tags. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, I've removed the claims supported only by those self-published sources, and re-worded the second sentence that was supported by a seemingly WP:RS, The Age, using wording that appeared in the article. I've also added some additional tags regarding other claims/citations. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice that you're being a stickler for the rules. But where there is a claim that Russ has published something on his website, and the reference is to the thing published, you do not need a secondary source to back up the claim. Please consider the context. —Pengo 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. Russ could claim he's the Grand Poobah of the state of Jefferson on his blog. That doesn't make the statement true; that doesn't make his blog a reliable source; that's why we have WP:V and insist on reliable, secondary sources, especially where there's as WP:COI. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability

It appears based on the content of this article, that this person fails WP:BASIC. I've added a {{notability}} tag hoping that sources can be found indicating he has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

I've removed everything which has marginally-acceptable citations or not citations at all. Oh, and the Quaker citation has to go, because it's only one, and it's a primary source (Ottawa meeting is saying that I'm a member). That cuts it down to just one event which has been notable and that fails whatever the hell is the policy which says that notability from a single event is not notability. Thus, now that everything has been removed, it's time to delete the whole article. --RussNelson (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to remove the notability tag from the article, since there has already been an AfD discussion about this article only a few months ago, and it closed as keep. In the absence of any information to suggest that this person has become significantly notable in those few months; or that Wikipedia's policies on notability have changed significantly in that time in a way that would affect notability of this person, the tag serves no purpose. I'm also somewhat unclear about the point of the "expert needed" tag in this instance, but I'll leave it there for the time being. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewording

As a completely uninvolved party, I have made an edit to one sentence of the article to diminish the negative emphasis, and I would regard anyone restoring it as being in direct violation of the obvious principles of BLP. I've given my opinion of the basic issue of notability at the AfD for the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

COI tag

I appreciate your concern, Sanpitch, but if you look beyond the edit history to the content which has been retained between edits, practically everything I ever put into the article has been removed, or been cited to death. I have a helpful editor following this article who has already ensured that your concerns have been addressed. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! --RussNelson (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is unwise for the person named to remove a COI tag, however misguided that tag was. If it is reinstated, please just post a comment here with a brief explanation of why the tag is not appropriate. In a perverse catch 22, removing a tag like demonstrates that the tag is needed (although I agree with you, and the tag is inappropriate, and three tags, triply so). Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that Damiens.rf would happily restore the tag if he disagreed with me. Sometimes it's a PITA to have a wikistalker, but other times it's like having a guardian angel on your shoulder. --RussNelson (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)