User talk:Lassiew

May 2011

James you are correct, I did misunderstand the category section. Someone had added "Urban Planning" for the category and I didn't see that as relevant so thought I would add what it does relate to. Sorry, my mistake and thank you for explaining that.

As for the links, they are not links to random articles about a person, but links to exclusive interviews with the living person represented on the Wiki page (many of these interviews are also posted on the living persons site/social media outlets as a cross reference on the validity of interview.) These should be documented for encyclopedic value. Where else can you find a commanding US General talking about training the leadership of the Egyptian Army that helped pull the Egyptian people from chaos through the Egyptian Revolution or training the current President of Indonesia? This is pertinent, relevant information and I avidly follow The Global Townhall for such information as do many other followers. Perhaps I should take more time to add the living person’s comments where relevant on their page and site the source, but I am still learning Wikipedia??? Actually, I'm not sure if this is even where I should put this response???

Thanks for taking yout time to explain this.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. I see that virtually all of your editing consists of linking to www.theglobaltownhall.com, and it is very difficult to see this as anything other than promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In this edit you seem to have misunderstood what a Wikipedia category is. The Global Townhall is not an American philanthropist, nor is it an American billionaires, nor an American female models, nor a member of any of the other categories you added, so I have removed those categories. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Closed AfD discussions

Please to not make alterations to the archives of AfDas you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Global Townhall. This sort of thing is not constructive and can be regarded as vandalism. Perdon (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Prison, I thought it was open to discussion on that page. I'm still learning about Wiki. So I will throw out my final thoughts here then since I feel responsible for giving the organization a bad rap now (with the use of "hoax" being thrown around) due to my inadequecies at using Wiki.

Check the CEO of The Global Town Hall listed on the Board of Directors for IRC, a well respected and well established international organization (listed on Wiki) who bring in Prime Ministers from around the world: http://www.irckc.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=276 another credible cross reference.

The organization is no hoax, but incredibly connected around the world. Connected enough for those who deal with it to respect it enough to want to be involved. What if they don't want to use mainstream media as they used to, like celebrities having there voice on Twitter? So your Google search is only relevent if you go to the notable people's websites to validate participation (which I provided examples of many on the other page and that you can find readily online.)

I can understand why you would come to that conclusion based on all the hoaxs out there, but I can guarantee you that is an inacurate conclusion and feel that it is worth further exploration. Sorry to continue this and I don't mean to be disrespectful or inflamatory, but I know the conclusions drawn here are inacurate and worth one last try at defending. Thanks for your consideration in the matter. (talk)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Global Townhall, you may be blocked from editing. You may have failed to notice that at the top of the page it said "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it", so adding your new commentary may have been a good faith mistake. However, that is not all you did: you also altered other editors' comments, which is more dubious, and you altered other editors' signatures so that they did not correctly identify the authors of the comments, which I can only see as deliberate vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

According to your disruptive link: “In addition, if an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.”

According to your Vandalism page: “Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.”

I did not change any signatures as accused or anyone elses writing but my fair and valid points of view were deleted to have only a one-sided and inaccurate assessment showing. If someone now does a search on the name of the page in question, it now it comes up as “hoax” when it absolutely, unequivocally NOT a hoax. That is libel and defamation of character and can impact the success of the site. You have jumped to conclusions that are inaccurate and out of date. A company that is dedicated to world good like saving women in Pakistan from being burned to death by their fathers through influencing culture through there celebrities (Veena Malik also proven by being promoted on her OFFICIAL SITE) on preventing honor killings, does NOT deserve to be treated in such a manner. This is incredibly unfair and just plan wrong.

So, if the company does exclusive interviews with such notable people it should be included on Wiki right? If the celebrities are posting the interview on there own official sites then how could they not have been interviewed??? This is a new world with new business models. (talk) Lassiew

"I did not change any signatures as accused or anyone elses writing"???? Are you unaware that past edits are available in the editing history for anyone to view? In this edit you changed a post by LibStar from saying "nothing in gnews" to saying "nothing in news", changed "User:Peridon" in a signature to "User:Peridone" and "User talk:Peridon" to "User talk:Prison", changed "JamesBWatson" in my signature to "James B Watson" three times. It is conceivable that changing "JamesBWatson" to "James B Watson" could have been done in good faith through a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia links work, but it is difficult to see "Peridon" to "Peridone" in that light, and I will be fascinated to see how you can explain how changing "Peridon" to "Prison" was anything other than vandalism. Unfortunately your denial and misrepresentation of the history, which, as I have said, is available for anyone at all to check for themselves, does nothing to further your cause, and if anything is likely to make a block more likely if you continue to edit disruptively. I have no doubt that you came to Wikipedia in good faith, unaware that what you were doing would fall foul of Wikipedia's policies, and I have every sympathy for the frustration you have no doubt experienced. However, if you want to make progress in editing Wikipedia you must start to act in cooperation with other editors, rather than showing a battleground mentality, and you will be more likely to get support if you are seen to be acting in good faith than if you give the impression of acting dishonestly. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I guess that is what happens when you use Google auto-check spelling on Wiki pages. Why would I change "a nother" to "another" for further evidence of spell checker used?" Not at all vandalism, I didn't notice the spell checker had made any of the other changes because the spell check was scrambled(try Google auto-spellcheck on Wiki and see if it works for you.) Yes, I know there is a edit history.

The only thing I intended to do on that page was to add this paragraph because it can be easily verified that these notable people interviewed with the company so the very premise for deletion was then invalid:

"Reason for deletion is "Nothing on Google despite the grand claims of being involved with notable people."

Would the notable people posting it on there OWN official sites not make the source reliable? If they did NOT do the interview would they put it on their OWN site?

There is a link to NO 1 World tennis champion in 2010 Caroline Wozniaki featuring the interview on HER website: http://www.carolinewozniacki.dk/?p=1574 And many more links on other notable people's site that were interviewed like famous Pakistani actress who recently spoke out about stopping honor killings in Pakistan. http://veenamalik.com.pk/veena-malik-famous-pakistani-actress-interview/ Best selling author David Baldacci: http://www.davidbaldacci.com/in-the-media/internet/436-global-townhall-april-8-2009 Caddy Shack actress Cindy Morgan: http://www.thebiguniverse.com/abbew/weekly.html And on and on dating back years.

What if ALL the internationally notable people on the site were actually interviewed? Would that not put you behind the times and not up to date on encyclopedic information???

Here is pictures of The Global Townhall CEO at dinner with a Senior Senator: http://www.theglobaltownhall.com/senator_roberts There is an audio clip of Leslie Nielsen on this page that is undeniable: http://www.theglobaltownhall.com/leslie_nielsen Here is a page that lists the celebrities on their pages: http://www.theglobaltownhall.com/celeb_talk Note Hall of Fame Astronaut who is also pictured visiting with The Global Townhall: http://www.theglobaltownhall.com/story_musgrave_kc and being introduced to influential people in Kansas City.

To many conclusions have been jumped to here without thorough research. I have been following the evolution of this site for years. Deleting this page is deleting important encyclopedic world history. (talk)"

I don't have battlegoround mentality, that is not my nature, but I will stand up when I absolutely disagree entirely with conclusion that was drawn here. I will remind you in a snipped version of above on vandalism:

“Even if willfully against consensus, edit warring over content is not vandalism.”

If you just looked at the links I provided above instead of thinking I am in battleground mentality, my point would be undeniable. If they are interviewing such notable people on such global issues, the information in these interviews are a gold mine. Like Leslie Nelien's interview done shortly before he died or billionaire Ken Talbot's interview shortly before he was killed in a plane wreck in the Congo. I'm obviously a big fan and have been for years so I hate to be responsible because at my inadequacies editing on Wiki to have the company associated with such a word as "hoax." I believe that should be corrected as it is unsubstaniated slander and just unfair. (talk) Lassiew

I will attempt to answer this question from Perdon:

"Puzzled What does "The Global Townhall (TGT) is a Kansas City based company dedicated to collecting ideas from successful people around the world to help main street excel." mean? Anyone know? Perdon (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)"

"Main street" is a term made popular again through the recent Wall Street crash, referring to everyday people trying to make an honest living to provide for there family. See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street.

As an example of what the above statement means, I just went back to review the Australian billionaire Ken Talbot's interview that I cited above. The interview focuses on how billionaires and policy makers can help poverty stricken Africans while conducting their mining business in Africa. It also includes tips from the billionaire on how to become financialy successful that could help people on "main street" prosper. So that is the type of interview, from a billionaire, about how to help everyday people "main street," that comment must refer to. http://www.theglobaltownhall.com/ken_talbot

Also, the Google search cited to validate the deletion of the page was for two words, it wasn't even the correct name which is three words. The search was not given an accurate term or relevent parameter given the nature of what you were reviewing. The search should include a list of guests interviewed that have reposted the interview on there official sites to validate the authenticity of whether the guests were interviewed or not. Many organizations are intentionly bypassing mainstream media now, so that is no longer a foolproof search mechanism. (talk) Lassiew

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I in no way threatened you, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you refer to the civility conduct "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." the word "hoax" that was associated with the reason of deletion would clearly fall into a violation of this code.

I will formally appeal this unreasonable deletion and at the very least request the use of the word removed. When The Global Townhall is searched that is what people will see. If the site does what it does to help people around the world, this is INCREDIBLY unfair and inaccurate. As I stated, notable people would not repost interviews with the company on there official sites if they were not interviewed. It is very clear. I hope to have this resolved without causing any issues and will formally appeal. Thank you for your time. Lassiew - User talk:Lassiew

The phrase That is libel and defamation of character (used in this edit) constitutes a legal threat. Please avoid such litigious-sounding insinuations when discussing an honest disagreement. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How Wikipedia works, and some friendly advice

Hello, I've read the heated discussions about The Global Townhall, and wanted to make some comments. First, I highly recommend that you withdraw all legal threats. If you persist in making such threats, you will be blocked from editing, and will be unable to make your case here. Please note that one editor used the phrase "potential hoax" in a debate, but no one concluded that your article actually was a hoax. To establish notability, Wikipedia relies on in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. In other words, nothing that is the product of this group's work can be used to establish notability. Not the group's own website, and not republication of its interviews by the interview subjects. It does you no good to keep repeating how important the interviews are. What we need to establish notability is in-depth coverage of the organization itself in reliable newspapers or books or journals published by reliable publishers which are completely independent of The Global Townhall. My search of Google News Archives shows no such coverage, but you are free to put forward such sources. If there has been no such coverage, then the group, though real and not a hoax, is not notable by Wikipedia standards, and not eligible for an article at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Google spell check and deletion review

In light of what you have said above I am willing to believe that the changes to other editors' post in the archived AfD were due to sue of a spell checker, even though changing "Peridon" to "Paris" seems odd, even for an automatic spell checker. However, I have the following suggestions to make. Firstly, I would never consider using such a spell checker without personally vetting the suggested "corrections". I have known far too many cases where they have made totally wrong "corrections". Secondly, if you use a spell checker then use it only for your own edits, not for the whole of a page which contains messages from other people.

On completely different issue, I see that you have posted elsewhere a statement of your intention to initiate a deletion review. I think it is only fair to warn you that doing so would almost certainly be a waste of your time, as none of the reasons you give address Wikipedia's criteria. (1) You say that it was wrong to cite a Google news search for "Global Townhall", as the correct title is "The Global Townhall". However, I have repeated the search in the form you require, and the result was Your search - "The Global Townhall" - did not match any documents. (2) You refer to "Proof of involvement with notable people", but notability is not inherited from notable people one associates with]]. WE require evidence that the subject of the article is notable in its own right. "Evidence that the CEO and Founder of The Global Townhall is actively involved with notable people" is even less use, as the notable people are two removes away from the subject of the article. If we allowed that a subject is notable because it has some connection to someone or something which has some connection to someone or something which is notable then notability would apply pretty generally. I would certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article, as I was once a student of someone who was a colleague of someone who is notable. (3) "The interview with Pakistani celebrity Veena Malik helps women in Pakistan from being killed by their fathers in honor killings by bringing cultural awareness through her following as a celebrity.", "they are all intended to help people", etc, are covered by Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Wikipedia articles exist because there is substantial coverage of their subjects in reliable third party sources, not because we judge their subject to be good causes. Unfortunately I do not see any prospect of any of your arguments carrying any weight, as they are not in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

You say "the word 'hoax' should be removed as it is slanderous". (Presumably you mean "libellous".) I know little about Florida libel law (Florida being where the Wikipedia servers are), but I would be very surprised if any jurisdiction would consider the remark you refer to as libellous, and of all the countries in the world I would think that the USA would be one of the least likely to do so. The remark in question was "potential hoax or at the very least blatant self promotion". It is perfectly clear there that the writer is saying that it may possibly be a hoax, not asserting that it is. I cannot believe that any state of the USA, with its great principal of "freedom of speech" would deny anyone the right to raise the question of the article's being possibly a hoax.

Finally, you mentioned the possibility of taking legal action. It is Wikipedia's policy that anyone who is involved in legal action, or who is contemplating taking such action, be blocked from editing, to avoid legal problems that might occur if the person in question continues to edit Wikipedia while in a legal dispute with Wikipedia or one or more of its editors. You therefore need to state unambiguously that you are have dropped your suggestion of taking legal action, unless you are willing to be blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am not trying to be disrectful in any way, shape or form. I did not say I was going to take legal action, nor do I plan to. I did not know that the word "slander" or any such word was banned on Wiki. I was just calling it as I see it, wrong, as a violation of civility. Even the suggestion of "a potential hoax" is detrimental to a company and there was no substanial evidence to even suggest it and taint the organization. What is the problem with removing that since it has been substantiated that it is not a hoax?

On notability is not inherited "Notability is the presence of in depth and significant treatment of a subject in reliable sources, not just the mere presence of the searched for term." Entire pages are dedicated to interviews of The Global Townhall on many reliable sources, being the notable person's official websites. Are notable people's official websites not quoted as official sources regularly now?

If not, Wiki perhaps need to re-evaluate the policy of todays use of the internet and include notable people's official website as a reliable source. Many celebrities are intentionally bypassing the use of mainstream media and using their official website and social media to control there own message.

Peace and goodwill to all of you. Lassiew (talk)

Hi. We don't remove content from archived discussions, except in rare circumstances, as we need to keep them as a record of what was actually discussed. In this case, should the article ever be recreated and discussed for deletion again, for example, what was discussed the previous time will be pertinent - such things often happen, and we need to be able to refer to previous discussions. Also, I believe "Wikipedia:" space pages are tagged so they are not indexed by search engines. When I do a Google search for "The Global Townhall", the AfD discussion doesn't show up, not even if I specifically search in the "en.wikipedia.org" domain - so it seems exceedingly unlikely that it will lead anyone doing searches to think it's a hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that Boing and thanks to all of you who have explained more on how Wiki works, I am learning.

I’m curious about Wiki policy on this point:

If a notable amount of credible, notable people like 3 Star Commanding Generals, Senior Senators, MP's from several different continents, former US Comptroller Generals, Governors, Hall of Fame astronauts (who obviously know the CEO and Founder if you read their interview answers and see pictures) and a host of other notable people choose to interview on the site, when does it officially become a reliable source in and of itself on Wiki? Those credible notable people are typically very cautious and do not interview with sites or people they do not find credible and reliable. Lassiew (talk)

When does it become a reliable source?

A reliable source is one that has a well-established reputation for fact checking, error correction and editorial independence. Examples include major newspapers, magazines, book publishing companies, broadcast news departments, academic journals and the like. It is difficult to visualize that a one-person operation would qualify. The first step in establishing that a media outlet is a reliable source would be discussion of that source's strengths and weaknesses in other reliable sources. No one now is denying that this project has conducted some interesting interviews of notable people. However, "interesting" is not the same as "notable" in Wikipedia terms. We have our policies and guidelines, and we strive to apply them consistently. These guidelines can evolve and adapt to new realities, but rarely in the context of a single case. Rather, we make changes in our basic procedures only after in-depth discussion leading to consensus by a broad range of editors. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Another point is that to establish notability there must be independent, third party sources. Sources from the organisation itself and from people they have interviewed are not independent sources. No amount of publicising one's own work or interviews of oneself confers notability. Not only is this Wikipedia's accepted standard, but it is also reasonable, in my opinion. There are in the world totally non-notable people who go to considerable lengths to publicise themselves. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful answers on what a reliable source is.

Not that I am suggesting putting it into Wiki's reliable source category, but I do believe that official statements from an active Commanding General (who replaced General Petraeus's position) on how the US Army perceive the Muslim Brotherhood after the Egyptian Revolution, is historically "notable" regardless of where it is reported (as long as it is obviously authentic and not a "hoax.") If you can't see it does it exist? Lassiew - User talk:Lassiew

Assuming that the general is notable and already has a Wikipedia article, then statements he made in thst interview could be briefly quoted in his article, or another article if germane. However, the notability of the general and his statements does not confer notability on the organization that interviewed him. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes,General Robert L. Caslen has a Wiki page and so does his important position Commandant of the United States Army Command and General Staff College. As does Senior Republican Senator Pat Roberts who discusses the evaluation of Iraq and whether he plans to run for President and the Democrat British MP Austin Mitchell. As does the US Comptroller General David M Walker who discusses such relevent issues as the economy at this historic moment in world history, and billionaire T Boone Pickens on energy. And at least over 100 other interviews with notable people who have their very own Wiki pages who have relevent, notable quotes as above, that could be or should be, included for very important encyclopedic value.

Which is why I don't understand that if there are so many of these quotes that could be important enough to add to notable people's Wiki pages or other articles if germane, why there would not be a page about the source they come from, notable or not? Which is why I do not understand why there would not be at least a page for The Global Townhall in the correct category. User:Lassie|Lassiew]] - User talk:Lassiew

I'm afraid you have missed the point about notability. "Official statements from an active Commanding General (who replaced General Petraeus's position) on how the US Army perceive the Muslim Brotherhood after the Egyptian Revolution" may establish notability for the Muslim Brotherhood, but they are not statements about the "Global Townhall", and do not indicate notability of that. The answer to "why there would not be a page about the source they come from, notable or not" is quite simply that Wikipedia policy is to have articles only on subjects which are notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"may establish notability for the Muslim Brotherhood, but they are not statements about the "Global Townhall", and do not indicate notability of that.” - JamesBWatson

Oh, I get it, so a notable person making a statement about something may establish notability for that something, not just that the statement was made on a particular source like The Global Townhall then. Thanks for explaining that. Lassiew - User talk:Lassiew

For those of you who are not following the deletion review page here is my latest update given the new policy information on notability:

A description on Wikipedia policy re establishing notably as per JamesBWatson’s statement on my talk page:

“I'm afraid you have missed the point about notability. "Official statements from an active Commanding General (who replaced General Petraeus's position) on how the US Army perceive the Muslim Brotherhood after the Egyptian Revolution" may establish notability for the Muslim Brotherhood, but they are not statements about the "Global Townhall", and do not indicate notability of that. The answer to "why there would not be a page about the source they come from, notable or not" is quite simply that Wikipedia policy is to have articles only on subjects which are notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)”

Focusing on this guideline a statement from a Commanding General "may establish notability for the Muslim Brotherhood, but they are not statements about the "Global Townhall", and do not indicate notability of that.” - JamesBWatson

Here is a list of notable people making statements specifically about The Global Townhall including the General mentioned above.

"I have read your column (The Global Townhall) with joy! Great interviews and discussion points. Thank-you for sharing; it is great work." General Robert L. Caslen - 3 Star US Commanding General

"WOW, this little enterprise came out just beautiful, it is a work of art and it was outrageous fun as well! I love your autobiographical musings on the website; your interviews are rich. The Global Townhall is a great forum! I really enjoyed talking with you Gabrielle" Story Musgrave - United States Astronaut Hall of Fame

"I would have to say that Gabrielle Reilly is one of the most interesting and dynamic people I have come across for a long time, we should all stand aside and listen to HER stories. I loved the question's she asked and would love to read anything she has to print, this woman is going place's... I love the Global Townhall. xx A fan Kelly Le Brock." Kelly LeBrock – Known for The Woman in Red and Weird Science

“Enjoyed talking with Gabrielle Reilly of THE GLOBAL TOWNHALL about balancing female sex appeal and making each year a happy journey.” Cindy Morgan – Known for Caddy Shack and Tron

“The best interviewers are the ones who make you think and Gabrielle (Reilly) does just that.” NJ Burkett - Emmy Award Winning correspondent known for his coverage of 9/11.

You can see many more comments specifically about The Global Townhall made by notable people here with some cross references from there official social media.

There is an abundance of comments specifically about The Global Townhall from notable people. So according to the guidelines from JamesBWatson above, a statement from the notable person actually has to be specifically about The Global Townhall to establish notability. Given the many notable people making specific statements about The Global Townhall a page therefore is warranted. Lassiew - User talk:Lassiew