The result was delete. — Scott • talk 10:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet standards for notability. Appears to be notable based on one allegation that was not resolved and several papers that were withdrawn. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
delete: I am a relative newcomer to posting in Wikipedia. Last night I posted un-sourced additions to this entry about a long-time friend to try to create some balance. The additions were removed by the initial author of the article, a writer who uses the pseudonym "nomoskedasticity." I have attempted to learn the rules today. I am a quick study.
The initial author violates Wikipedia's POV policy by highlighting one minor series of events in the subject's life without placing it in context with his overall achievements, which are significant. The overall portrayal of the subject is undeservedly negative. He actually is a pretty good guy.
A simple Google search of Nomoskedasticity's pen name suggests that he/she has a bias, bordering on obsession, with a very strict interpretation of the rules for citing sources. In one posting in a Wikipedia discussion, the author says "Anyone arguing that plagiarism isn't a serious issue for an encyclopedia needs to encounter an army of cluebats. (Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC.)" Taken literally, this is an invitation to violence against people who do not share the writer's perspective. This should rebut any inference that the writer has an open mind on his/her interpretation of the topic of plagiarism.
In another post on the Chronicle for Higher Education's site a writer using the name nomoskedasticity exhorts someone to "badger some reporters!" for coverage of a plagiarism allegation so that the news coverage could be the source of a Wikipedia page. ("UMass Plaigarist makes $166k/year" Chronicle, March 15, 2013.) This exhortation basically is an attempt to use a newspaper to "launder" original research so that it could be cited in a subsequent Wikipedia listing.
This makes me question whether nomoskedasticity wasn't the original informant for the Baltimore Sun articles mentioned in the disputed post. If so, he/she would be the original source of material that was run through a newspaper and subsequently cited in Wikipedia. I believe that this stretches Wikipedia's rules against original research.
I always like to use my name when posting opinion. Anonymous web posts are inherently unreliable because the reader cannot vet the biases and experiences of the writer.
Mark Adams, Baltimore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.197.73 ( talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
which could be a passing mention. The abstract of "Hopes of legally selling snowballs melt away before zoning board; 2 who tried to run stands from home are denied" consists of nothing but the headline--one that suggests a likely passing mention of Mr. Neil. The snippet on Google saysThe guilty pleas were accepted by Judge Donald J. Gilmore after pretrial negotiations between Benjamin A. Neil, an assistant state's attorney, and Michael S.
which looks like a passing mention. Some articles mention that he ran for the Baltimore city council. — rybec 03:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) reply"We need the patience of Job somedays," says Zoning Board Chairman Benjamin A. Neil. It is here that Rosia Morgan, 69, and Timothy McGinnis, 29, found ...
The result was delete. — Scott • talk 10:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet standards for notability. Appears to be notable based on one allegation that was not resolved and several papers that were withdrawn. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
delete: I am a relative newcomer to posting in Wikipedia. Last night I posted un-sourced additions to this entry about a long-time friend to try to create some balance. The additions were removed by the initial author of the article, a writer who uses the pseudonym "nomoskedasticity." I have attempted to learn the rules today. I am a quick study.
The initial author violates Wikipedia's POV policy by highlighting one minor series of events in the subject's life without placing it in context with his overall achievements, which are significant. The overall portrayal of the subject is undeservedly negative. He actually is a pretty good guy.
A simple Google search of Nomoskedasticity's pen name suggests that he/she has a bias, bordering on obsession, with a very strict interpretation of the rules for citing sources. In one posting in a Wikipedia discussion, the author says "Anyone arguing that plagiarism isn't a serious issue for an encyclopedia needs to encounter an army of cluebats. (Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC.)" Taken literally, this is an invitation to violence against people who do not share the writer's perspective. This should rebut any inference that the writer has an open mind on his/her interpretation of the topic of plagiarism.
In another post on the Chronicle for Higher Education's site a writer using the name nomoskedasticity exhorts someone to "badger some reporters!" for coverage of a plagiarism allegation so that the news coverage could be the source of a Wikipedia page. ("UMass Plaigarist makes $166k/year" Chronicle, March 15, 2013.) This exhortation basically is an attempt to use a newspaper to "launder" original research so that it could be cited in a subsequent Wikipedia listing.
This makes me question whether nomoskedasticity wasn't the original informant for the Baltimore Sun articles mentioned in the disputed post. If so, he/she would be the original source of material that was run through a newspaper and subsequently cited in Wikipedia. I believe that this stretches Wikipedia's rules against original research.
I always like to use my name when posting opinion. Anonymous web posts are inherently unreliable because the reader cannot vet the biases and experiences of the writer.
Mark Adams, Baltimore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.197.73 ( talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
which could be a passing mention. The abstract of "Hopes of legally selling snowballs melt away before zoning board; 2 who tried to run stands from home are denied" consists of nothing but the headline--one that suggests a likely passing mention of Mr. Neil. The snippet on Google saysThe guilty pleas were accepted by Judge Donald J. Gilmore after pretrial negotiations between Benjamin A. Neil, an assistant state's attorney, and Michael S.
which looks like a passing mention. Some articles mention that he ran for the Baltimore city council. — rybec 03:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) reply"We need the patience of Job somedays," says Zoning Board Chairman Benjamin A. Neil. It is here that Rosia Morgan, 69, and Timothy McGinnis, 29, found ...