Talk:Roberto Weiss

Untitled

I have gathered a lot of this information for this article from family resources (he is my grandfather). The family has letters to Roberto Weiss from John Buchan. He is clearly notable in his own right.Squiquifox 21:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have put the debate about Roberto Weiss here for interest. I do not feel the fact I was his grandson had anything to do with whether he should be in Wikipedia, as articles should stand or fall in their own right, and not because of who wrote them, but it did feel best not to vote on the deletion. Great that it has been expanded, and his place here confirmed. --SqueakBox 18:23, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

from VfD

While probably a very good UCL professor, his own grandson was unable to write enough about him to expand the article beyond a stub. A.D.H. (t&m) 21:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) Contrary to my expectations, this article has been expanded into a brief but informative biography. In light of this, and given current consensus, I'm removing the VFD notice. A.D.H. (t&m) 19:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Roberto Weiss was an important scholar who published several influential books and many articles on the renaissance and humanism. He was a member of numerous academies and held the professorhip of Italian at UCL for 23 years. Have you tried searching for information on Weiss before making this nomination? / up land 22:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There are thousands of university professors and even more published academics—my own family is not without its share—and these accomplishments do not automatically imply encyclopedic notability. The article, a series of single-sentence factoids, is "fluffed" to begin with, and yet still does not exceed a single paragraph. A.D.H. (t&m) 22:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • The current policy on academics on Wikipedia is the professor test: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included". Roberto Weiss clearly meets that requirement. / up land 14:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • This is not current policy. Please read the linked page you cite. It is a proposal. It has never received consensus. Please do not attempt "proof by repeated assertion." And it is not not a test "for academics," but one proposed measure of notability for inclusion of any biography. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Fine, it is not current policy then, but is the best we have until people agree on something. A policy is needed. Judging the notability of academics by voting in each case is difficult and puts them at a disadvantage compared to pop-culture celebrities and sportspeople (and slashdot trolls, for that matter). / up land 16:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • That's true, but this isn't the forum for discussing it. I suppose Wikipedia:Village pump would be the best place to raise it and start a discussion. Let me know if you do. Mattley 17:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• very weak keep. Borderline for sure but the article is nicely done (overlinked, though). Search on "The Renaissance discovery of classical antiquity" yields 180 hits, virtually all relevant. The book is in print, in a paperback edition that Amazon can ship within a couple of days, but only has a sales rank of 1,216,577 (my personal rule-of-thumb is the rank should be higher than 200,000). The John Buchan connection is mildly interesting. www.abebooks.com turns up 31 used copies books by him; interestingly enough there are many other titles besides "The Renaissance discovery of classical antiquity." My local public library doesn't have any books by him but the local library interloan network has "Humanism In England During The Fifteenth Century." and "The spread of Italian" humanism. I'm being inconsistent because I've voted to delete roughly comparable academics, but, hey, Ralph Waldo Emerson, right? I think I'm being swayed by the snapshot. Note that if the article is voted for deletion, this would be very appropriate material for User:Squiquifox's user page—and Wikipedia user pages are indexed by Google. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not especially keen on people writing articles on family members but this man seems more than significant enough for inclusion. It is a specialised field but he seems to have been a very big contributor, with books still in print and widely referenced on university reading lists, and collections established by him in use at several institutions. Note, incidentally, that a Professor at a university in the United Kingdom is what Americans would call a full professor. Mattley 00:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think the fact it was written by his grandson is actually relevant, the article should improve with expansion and some rewording to remove POV. --nixie 02:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though it's rather bad form to write about one's family. James F. (talk) 02:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand, notable. Megan1967 04:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable scholar in his field. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article passed its Afd. It appears that User:Hagiographer hates the person who started this article and wants to attack the person, harming the wikipedia in the process. See his contributions as I have and the personal attack ban on this user

User:Hagiographer

Hagiographer has bemirsched this article based on a personal vendetta, as I was informed earlier this evening. The deletion vote was so clear and it appears that Hagiographer has been pursuing a personal vendetta by setting troll bait in order to get a banned user, SqueakBox from braking his ban. What behaviour! I hope we wont see a repeat performance as such behaviour from a user who is forbidden by arbitration committee decree from making personal attacks against this userRelator 00:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why WP:AGF isn't followed? I've not seen the VfD discussion in the talk page. Why don't you tell me that in my talk page? I've followed the proposed for deletion process honestly. Why this persecution? Hagiographer 06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

TYhese latest edits by Hagiographer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BlackApe show him to be a highly rascist individual beyond any possibility of redemption. 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathdate

This has now been sourced from his The Times obituary, SqueakBox 16:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Oxford DNB gives his d.o.b. as 22 Jan. 1906, not 21. Any clarification? Hostiensis (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian Title

In Barbara Pym's Some Tame Gazelle Weiss is referenced as being a "real-life count". Was he, in fact?Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

COI tag

You need to come here and explain your actions re COI, User:Cavarrone. I trust you are aware that Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding is not tolerated here and yet you seem to be editing articles based on what you have read on my user page. You need to explain why youthink the COI tag is deserved. Unlesyou do so it will be removed. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying you are the nephew of the subject (yes, I read it in your UP) as well as the creator and major editor of the article? Sorry, but the COI tag here is OBVIOUS. Especially considering the hagiographic tones of the article. My best, Cavarrone 01:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Nephew? Nope. Grandson who barely knew him? Yes. The problem with theb hagiographic tones is they were probably inserted by other authors, but I do agree witht hat judgement and will work to remove it. So what I want is you to proved some diffs as to my COI here because I think you are fishing. I am certainly not the major editor of the article. And you appear to be wikistalking me because you are angry with me because of my BLP enforcement on porn articles at the weekend. I advise you to be careful in your interactions with me both on and off wikipedia because I will not tolerate being harrassed and wiki harrassment is a blockable offence if it is persistent. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikihounding? I just read in your UP your connections with Weiss and TV Genius‎; I was curious to check these two articles and then... TA DAAA you were the creator and the major contributor (yes you are) of both, and both the articles have clear and obvious problems. I was frankly surprised there was actually no COI tag. About this one, it almost enterely consists of original research (and your very first version was even worst, wholly unsourced [1]), consists of things you probably know are true but that are actually unverifiable [2], and of a large puffery. Sorry, this is COI (read the text of the template: 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). --Cavarrone 02:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point re houndin, you got these articles from my user page. What you havent admitted though is your huge anger towards me for BLP enforcement in porn lists. Critciziing me for edits I made years ago when wikipdia sourcing culture was very different are not helpful and actually most things in this article are sourced. That you are criticizing me for edits I mmade years ago makes me think that I am the problem and not the articles. Just remember that since the weekend you also have a COI relationship with me where you appear to be very angry and here you are editing articles you picked out from my user page. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing retaliatory here, nor a bad faith edit, nor a wikihounding pattern, just a valid COI tag in an article about a person you are connected and which consists of hagiographic tones unsupported by reliable sources. You take things too personally. Discuss the article, not your conspiracy theories. Cavarrone 03:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt look that way to me, given TV Genius but at this stage I am just giving you a friendly word of advice to make sure your obvious rage at me for the weekend does not turn into a pattern. I have said I will edit the article and meanwhile I await the diffs I asked you for. Nothing to talk about till I see those diffs or work on the sycophantic tone, which we both agree exists and shouldnt. And a conspiracy takes 2, so I havent made any such theories, sigh! Ciao for now. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

1 taking two articles from a user page is not harassement. If you want people don't check them then remove them from your user page. This is "a correct use of an editor's history" which "includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", such as your conflict of interests in this case. Harassing wikihounding include "tendentiousness, personal attacks or other disruptive behavior" and there is nothing similar in the tags. 2 I have ZERO "rage" against you. Especially after the AFD fiasco and the restoration of the page, and its actual improvements. 3 What diffs do you want? I posted you the very first version of the article and it was a disaster from the beginning! I posted you a most recent second difference when you added unsourced claims about your family. It would need a complete rewriting, starting from verifiable sources and from a neutral point of view, otherwise all the original research should go away. 4 I invite you to follow WP:COIU, just edit the article to "remove spam and revert unambiguous vandalism, remove content that unambiguously violates the biography of living persons policy, fix spelling and grammatical errors, revert or remove their own COI edits, make edits where there is clear consensus on the talk page (though it is better to let someone else do it), and add reliable sources". All the rest is better handled by other, uninvolved editors. Cavarrone 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Err, telling me what I should not put on my user page is not helpful, and besides there are many ways a wikihounder can work but without sockpuppets it becomes a tricky business and then even more so, because everyone can see what the wikihounder is doing, specially if they are not particularly smart, not that I am implying you would ever use a sockpuppet of course There is no conflict of interest that I can see here, or not until you actually provide the diffs to back up your statements, otherwise it is based on your rather obvious hostility towards me since the weekend. So either provide some diffs or edit the article or something. And I will also edit the article to address some of the issues you pointed out and to help ensure it is entirely reliably sourced. After all he is my grndfather anmd I would not want nything les for him. So I expect to see some positive ediitng from you here, please. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest that I can see here? There is "obvious" conflict of interest, please read WP:COI, your denial means that you have a guilty conscience or you simply don't understand the COI page. Writing an unsourced article to celebrate a member of your family and to promote your family's company IS patently editing in conflict of insterest. Eg, where are the sources for your family loaning a large collection of Renaissance medals to the Fitzwilliam Museum? Where are the evidences it is true and not just puffery? As you are asking me to edit the article, I will not be bold even if I could, I will add some tags, feel free to source the sentences by verifiable reliable sources, otherwise in a couple of week or so I will remove them. Cavarrone 05:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I hav not written an usnourced article, thouygh. It has sources, please dont claim it didnt. This article is nnot celebrating anybody and it flew through its afd, as I am sure you are aware. Please provide the diffs about the family loans. And if you dont like it delete it. If I start to revert your removal of unsourced material THEN you might be justified in COI claims. What I wont put up with is you trying to use this page to pursue a vendetta and if you continue in this vein you will be talking to yourself from now on. Bu do edit the article if you have any concerns, better that than start to blame me without any diffs, and dont expect me to justify any pre 2013 edits, for the record. This sint about me it is about nthe article and if you try to make it about me that will just cause trouble that nobody wants as your contribs are the evidence of your fury towards me last weekedn and here you are sniffing around me like a hound. Or is it just that you live in the city he was born in? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 05:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually posted two links, one showing you wrote an unsourced article, the second showing you edited the family loans story without providing any source as well. Just look above. I also added the tags to the article. Please provide the sources and drop the stick with all this fuss about fury, rage and similar. It does not help your cause. Cavarrone 05:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your motives are abundantly clear, as the various diffs and other evidences make clear, ie you were furious at me and then came straight here. When the article was written wikiepdia had different values and I will not discuss edits I made more than a couple of years ago. All I want from you is a path whereby we can remove the COI tag. What do you propose is necessary. And denying this wont help your cause, whatever that may be. Here my interest is in getting a good article. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am active against COI editing for years, I am a member of WP:WPINTEGRITY from its birth, it is easily verifiable I posted dozens of COI tags before these two. I noticed you wrote two articles in blatant conflict of interest and I properly tagged them, end of the story. PS, do you have started other articles which have potential COI-problems? Frankly you are acting as someone who has some shameful secret to hide. About your excuse that you do not want discuss edits made more than a couple of years ago, what happened two years ago? I was here and rules were substantially the same. WP:COI exists since 2004. WP:V, a policy that is widely not observed here, since 2003. About the "path", I already wrote I was giving you (and others) enough time to source the unreferenced stuff before cleaning up the articles. And if you want avoid further COI problems, for now and for the future, per WP:COIU you are welcome to "remove spam and revert unambiguous vandalism, remove content that unambiguously violates the biography of living persons policy, fix spelling and grammatical errors, revert or remove their own COI edits, make edits where there is clear consensus on the talk page (though it is better to let someone else do it), and add reliable sources", especially the latter, all the rest is COI editing. Cavarrone 06:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You refuse to enage in mediation with me and here you are yet again engaging in bad faith accusations. Given I admit all COI interests on my talk page I will put your bad faith accusation down to frustration at not getting your way in trying to ignore BLP when it comes to people who work in the porn industry. Sad that this article shoulñd suffer from your frustration though. You basically seemt o be arguing that people should not reveal their COI on their user page because you will be there to "police" their honest assertions, especially when you have conflicts in other areas with said users. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisting COI tag

A few months down the line it is time to remove this tag. You only placed it there because honestly revealed any possible COI issues on my user page and that is not an appropriate use of said tag. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

With respect, a COI editor, who has an history of bans for promotional and COI editing, is the last person who can remove a valid COI tag from articles he wrote about his family members and his companies! --Cavarrone 20:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You edit warring wont solve this though. I suggest you seek out other opinions, and I dont mean from your porn-editing friends. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The one who seem obsessed from porn is you, I edit very rarely such articles! And yours is not a justification. Cavarrone 23:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)