This article was one of Qworty's hatchetjobs.
User:Lastitem may be a Qworty sock - it added negative material in 2010
[1] that was gradually whittled away, then readded by Qworty in 2012 almost verbatim
[2]. However, it seems to be reasonably NPOV right now and none of Qworty's edits currently stand.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
04:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Article was/is a puff piece about an author Robert Clark Young apparently liked. I've proposed it for deletion for reasons explained in the PROD nomination.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
23:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)reply
All seems to be alright with this article. HOWEVER,
123.224.94.138 should be investigated as a possible Qworty sockpuppet. 123.224.94.138 very insistently fought to keep material that Qworty introduced.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
01:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Can't say there's no problems here because it looks like the article has been whitewashed since Qworty's edit, but there are no current Qworty-related problems.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
08:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Qworty went to war to try and make the article as derogatory as possible, but by now the article is informative and well balanced; none of his edits remain.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
09:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
No problems. A majority of the edits were POV-pushing, but were reverted by others at the time. The last dozen edits were constructive grammatical fixes.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
09:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Oldest edit deprecated, several edits reverted. One long deletion stands, arguably it was peacock material touting who used this self-publishing press. Qworty was a content warrior in attempting to label the subject a "vanity press" rather than a "self-publishing company." The tendentious phrasing does not appear in the article as of today, thus I believe there is no lasting damage resulting from Qworty's editorial participation here.
Carrite (
talk)
16:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Stubbed article and nominated it for AfD; while some language was promotional, most of it would have been better to reference than outright remove. Article was kept at AfD and is in ok shape now.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)03:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Q's removals are highly aggressive and feel vengeful here; however, the majority of what he removed really was promotional or otherwise dubious and trivial. The actual stuff that should not have been removed, like some categories, references and a list of noteworthy books, were restored, and the article was mostly stripped of promo by another editor.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)03:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Q's removals are aggressive, he removed sources and 'unsourced' materials + added an AfD notice. Article was kept at AfD and looks a lot better now.
Sgubaldo (
talk)
10:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Section about alleged professional misconduct later removed after what looks to have been a frenzied edit war that did not involve Qworty.
Ceronomus (
talk)
21:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Some now gone tag bomb, likely as a result of his campaign against the author. He removed some otherwise promotional/trivial material.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)
long history of tendentious and bullying edits, most of them promptly reverted. Reverted the final two, which removed categories and a bibliography without any attempt to salvage information or improve the article.
MarkBernstein (
talk)
22:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)reply
FYI: There were
WP:COI problems with this article (which did not involve Qworty), though rather than simply reverting to the old
sourced version, Qworty deleted most of the content. I've essentially reverted to a pre-COI version and incorporated some of the (non-COI) subsequent edits. --
Gyrofrog (talk)20:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)reply
This article was one of Qworty's hatchetjobs.
User:Lastitem may be a Qworty sock - it added negative material in 2010
[1] that was gradually whittled away, then readded by Qworty in 2012 almost verbatim
[2]. However, it seems to be reasonably NPOV right now and none of Qworty's edits currently stand.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
04:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Article was/is a puff piece about an author Robert Clark Young apparently liked. I've proposed it for deletion for reasons explained in the PROD nomination.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
23:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)reply
All seems to be alright with this article. HOWEVER,
123.224.94.138 should be investigated as a possible Qworty sockpuppet. 123.224.94.138 very insistently fought to keep material that Qworty introduced.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
01:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Can't say there's no problems here because it looks like the article has been whitewashed since Qworty's edit, but there are no current Qworty-related problems.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
08:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Qworty went to war to try and make the article as derogatory as possible, but by now the article is informative and well balanced; none of his edits remain.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
09:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
No problems. A majority of the edits were POV-pushing, but were reverted by others at the time. The last dozen edits were constructive grammatical fixes.
Seth Kellerman (
talk)
09:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Oldest edit deprecated, several edits reverted. One long deletion stands, arguably it was peacock material touting who used this self-publishing press. Qworty was a content warrior in attempting to label the subject a "vanity press" rather than a "self-publishing company." The tendentious phrasing does not appear in the article as of today, thus I believe there is no lasting damage resulting from Qworty's editorial participation here.
Carrite (
talk)
16:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Stubbed article and nominated it for AfD; while some language was promotional, most of it would have been better to reference than outright remove. Article was kept at AfD and is in ok shape now.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)03:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Q's removals are highly aggressive and feel vengeful here; however, the majority of what he removed really was promotional or otherwise dubious and trivial. The actual stuff that should not have been removed, like some categories, references and a list of noteworthy books, were restored, and the article was mostly stripped of promo by another editor.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)03:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Q's removals are aggressive, he removed sources and 'unsourced' materials + added an AfD notice. Article was kept at AfD and looks a lot better now.
Sgubaldo (
talk)
10:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Section about alleged professional misconduct later removed after what looks to have been a frenzied edit war that did not involve Qworty.
Ceronomus (
talk)
21:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Some now gone tag bomb, likely as a result of his campaign against the author. He removed some otherwise promotional/trivial material.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)
long history of tendentious and bullying edits, most of them promptly reverted. Reverted the final two, which removed categories and a bibliography without any attempt to salvage information or improve the article.
MarkBernstein (
talk)
22:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)reply
FYI: There were
WP:COI problems with this article (which did not involve Qworty), though rather than simply reverting to the old
sourced version, Qworty deleted most of the content. I've essentially reverted to a pre-COI version and incorporated some of the (non-COI) subsequent edits. --
Gyrofrog (talk)20:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)reply