Talk:Danese Cooper/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Danese Cooper. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Meher Baba follower?
Somebody deleted the (unsourced) mention of Danese being a follower of Meher Baba. I did a quick google and didn't find any printed mention. On the other hand, if you were to accuse her of being a follower of Meher Baba, she would have a hard time denying it. --RussNelson (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Try here http://danesecooper.blogs.com/divablog/
- "One factoid erasure that really surprised me was the fact that I have long been a follower of Indian guru Meher Baba. It was surprising because it is such a personal detail and because it was deleted not only from my page, but my name automatically also disappeared from another Wikipedia page listing followers. For the record, I've been following Meher Baba for more than half my life (since 1979)....",--220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Trouble is that's self-reporting. While we assume good faith on the part of editors, we don't assume good faith in biographies. We need somebody else to report on it, like somebody associated with MB himself. RussNelson (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Seems good enough to me given the weight of evidence. Another stone on the cairn would be good but it's clearly not just an incidental rock-pile. Webmink (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, let's throw our principles out the window. What the heck? Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a question of throwing our principles out the window. It's a question of how do you determine things like school attendance. For example, I attended the Plaza Elementary School in Baldwin, NY. Given my address when growing up (which you could determine through a fair bit of effort by researching deeds and locating the property that my parents owned), and by looking at the geographic split between elementary school districts, you could verify that I indeed went to Plaza. But frankly, why would anyone doubt me? To a certain extent, a BLP is going to contain interesting information which is verifiable through public records. Who are you going to believe? Me or my lying government? So, there is no citation given for Danese's attendance at The Chadwick School, UCLA, the Peace Corps, or the Ren Faire. Why not? First, because only the most pedantic of WP editors is going to ask, and secondly, because the path to verifying the fact is obvious: you ask the institution. If you have attempted that, and failed, THEN you might reasonably ask somebody else to try and to document your attempt to verify the fact yourself.
- It is simply not the case that every fact about someone in a BLP is going to have a citation. Unnecessary requests for citations does not improve WikiPedia -- particularly when the number of WP editors has been dropping. Thrusting people away, as you have done here, is not clearly improving WP. Please reconsider what you are doing. RussNelson (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- You seriously misunderstand WP:V. Toddst1 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, you seriously misunderstand WP:V. --RussNelson (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- You seriously misunderstand WP:V. Toddst1 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Love the positive attitude. Really makes one want to participate here. Webmink (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- If one doesn't want to participate, one should not. Nobody is forcing one. Were you expecting a pep rally for your endorsement of a lousy source? Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. I see. From the link you recently posted on your user page, it's clear that you have a serious WP:COI with this article as you worked closely with Danese at Sun, hence your bias. Q.E.D. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Knowing what you are talking about is not the same as COI or indeed bias and as a long-term Wikipedian I find your allegation offensive. Contributing to Wikipedia used to be a good-faith process where one gave of what one could and others cherished and developed that contribution. Pity it's not any more, and that enforcement of rules by deletions takes priority over common-sense contribution and incremental enhancement. Oh, and at least I identify myself. Webmink (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are right: Knowing what you are talking about is not the same as COI. You have a COI.Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Webmink has a point: since we don't know who you are, it's just as reasonable to suggest that you have a COI as for you to suggest that Webmink has a COI. Pseudonymous edits must be presumed to be done from a COI, don't you think? RussNelson (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even assuming your rude and ill-judged anonymous assertion is right, care to explain what relevance it has to this edit? Webmink (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you haven't, you just posted an inappropriate "welcome to Wikipedia" COI macro there and left my valid question - how any COI could affect a comment about Meher Baba in the "personal" section here - unaddressed. Webmink (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are right: Knowing what you are talking about is not the same as COI. You have a COI.Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Knowing what you are talking about is not the same as COI or indeed bias and as a long-term Wikipedian I find your allegation offensive. Contributing to Wikipedia used to be a good-faith process where one gave of what one could and others cherished and developed that contribution. Pity it's not any more, and that enforcement of rules by deletions takes priority over common-sense contribution and incremental enhancement. Oh, and at least I identify myself. Webmink (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. I see. From the link you recently posted on your user page, it's clear that you have a serious WP:COI with this article as you worked closely with Danese at Sun, hence your bias. Q.E.D. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- If one doesn't want to participate, one should not. Nobody is forcing one. Were you expecting a pep rally for your endorsement of a lousy source? Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, let's throw our principles out the window. What the heck? Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seems good enough to me given the weight of evidence. Another stone on the cairn would be good but it's clearly not just an incidental rock-pile. Webmink (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about original research, but specifically primary sources and WP:COI. I could post on my blog that I was santa claus, but that doesn't mean it's a reliable source, and having my buddies use it as a primary source on the article about me is well beyond encyclopedic. Toddst1 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Still avoiding the question but I give up, have your game. Webmink (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
WMF hire
Danese was just hired by the Wikimedia Foundation to be the CTO. The article needs to be updated to reflect these developments. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- That information was already in the article when you posted this request. Killiondude (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hat
I wonder if the knit cap in the article image was knit by Cooper. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It was. It was discussed at length at the WMF DE Developer meetup when the Volcano stranded us —Reedy 09:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Tag-team and COI editing by Open Source Initiative board members
It's pretty clear that there is a big COI problem here with folks on the board at the Open Source Initiative. They're pretty closely connected and editing each others' articles in tandem. Simon Phipps has self identified himself as Open Source Guy (talk · contribs) and Webmink (talk · contribs), Russ Nelson is self-evident as RussNelson (talk · contribs) and Danese Cooper is also on the board.
The bigger problem is that these folks are all relying on primary sources writing articles about each other.
I've restored the {{connected contributor}} tag and I believe these folks should stand down from editing these articles in the spirit of WP:COI, WP:V and WP:Meatpuppet. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The bug in your theory is that I have not edited this entry since becoming an OSI Director, only responded to you on the Talk page. I am not going to edit here, but I would be grateful if you would remove me (twice) from that macro since it is unnecessary overkill given the data. Not that I intend to edit WP any more, this aggressive behaviour is too distressing. Open Source Guy (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I removed it. You're right that some of these people know each other and are all on the Board of OSI. But the point of the connected contributor template is only to point out someone who is the subject of an article who has an editor account. If you'd like to re-add it with Danese's account (she must have one somewhere) then please do. But the point of the template is not to support a hunt for a bunch of COI editors. It's to point out when an editor has a bio. Steven Walling 19:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As a member of the Foundation, your intervention on this matter and endorsement of the abjectly poor editing going on here by these editors is appalling. Shame on you. Guess I'm done here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm editing with my volunteer account for a reason. I don't work for Danese. If you don't care to participate anymore, that's unfortunate since you clearly know your way around BLPs, but I see no reason to freak out. You don't have to do what I say. Steven Walling 19:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. I hope you enjoy your corruption of this place. You're doing a fine job of it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- "the point of the connected contributor template is only to point out someone who is the subject of an article who has an editor account" - no, that's what Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles and/or Category:Notable Wikipedians are for. The connected contributors template specifically includes "significantly related to" in addition to "covered by". An argument could be made that these editors are not significantly related to the subject of this article. However, that argument hasn't yet been made. In the meantime, I am replacing the template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, cool. I was totally wrong. Like I said on ANI: the template is not the real issue here for me. It's the general attitude of hostility and suspicion. Steven Walling 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's no suspicion - it's demonstrated fact. Toddst1 (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a demonstrated fact they have a relationship of some kind to Danese. No, having a conflict of interest is not demonstrable proof of acting in bad faith, and it doesn't give us the right to be hostile to people. That doesn't mean letting crappy articles just be crappy. It means that we not bite the newbies and cut them some slack when they're trying to step delicately around our complicated rules for everything under the sun. I know you're saying these things because you care a lot about Wikipedia Toddst1, but it doesn't help the encyclopedia to act as if everyone is out to ruin it all the time. Steven Walling 02:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- What makes you think they or you are newbies? Convenient phrase but totally inappropriate for a mob of relatively accomplished editors working together. Toddst1 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your theory of conspiracy remains unproven. Cite it or cut it out, KTHX? I had no idea Open Source Guy was Simon, or even that he was currently editing the article; news to me! --RussNelson (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about me at all. Steven Walling 03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- If they were "working together" to do something particularly dastardly (like white-washing articles about each other or inserting qualifications they don't have, or inserting negative material about opponents or something) then I'd see the need for the excitement. If it's just limited to failing to improve stubby-quality articles about each other and (you seem to be arguing) hindering tagging of issues affecting the quality of those articles, then almost all of this seems like an over-reaction. If the people concerned are sufficiently non-notable that no-one independent of them ever takes an interest in adding good quality sources to their articles, then they are likely to end up at AfD. It's useful that this has been highlighted, but it doesn't seem like a conspiracy to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've reviewed my contributions to this article. I disagree with the idea that my contributions have been "significant". Aside from the first (which was later buttressed with a citation which Mrs. Toddst1 removed), all three of my edits have been non-controversial, well-cited, and minor. Thus, I have removed myself from the template. I understand that some people may disagree with that decision; I invite them to justify their opinion with some discussion of why my edits are "significant" relative to others' edits (for example, Mrs. Toddst1's deletions). The biggest challenge to Wikipedia is internal: people like Toddst1 deleting information which is acceptable the margin. She's trying to push the margin back; I'm pushing back against her pushing. I agree with her that some people try to gain advantage by having a Wikipedia article; additions to a personal section of a page highlighting human interest, such as Danese being named after her father's car, or her religion, seem like harmless additions. Of course, if you're a deletionist, everything must be deleted incldng vwls evntlly. --RussNelson (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- If they were "working together" to do something particularly dastardly (like white-washing articles about each other or inserting qualifications they don't have, or inserting negative material about opponents or something) then I'd see the need for the excitement. If it's just limited to failing to improve stubby-quality articles about each other and (you seem to be arguing) hindering tagging of issues affecting the quality of those articles, then almost all of this seems like an over-reaction. If the people concerned are sufficiently non-notable that no-one independent of them ever takes an interest in adding good quality sources to their articles, then they are likely to end up at AfD. It's useful that this has been highlighted, but it doesn't seem like a conspiracy to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- What makes you think they or you are newbies? Convenient phrase but totally inappropriate for a mob of relatively accomplished editors working together. Toddst1 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a demonstrated fact they have a relationship of some kind to Danese. No, having a conflict of interest is not demonstrable proof of acting in bad faith, and it doesn't give us the right to be hostile to people. That doesn't mean letting crappy articles just be crappy. It means that we not bite the newbies and cut them some slack when they're trying to step delicately around our complicated rules for everything under the sun. I know you're saying these things because you care a lot about Wikipedia Toddst1, but it doesn't help the encyclopedia to act as if everyone is out to ruin it all the time. Steven Walling 02:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's no suspicion - it's demonstrated fact. Toddst1 (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, cool. I was totally wrong. Like I said on ANI: the template is not the real issue here for me. It's the general attitude of hostility and suspicion. Steven Walling 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- "the point of the connected contributor template is only to point out someone who is the subject of an article who has an editor account" - no, that's what Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles and/or Category:Notable Wikipedians are for. The connected contributors template specifically includes "significantly related to" in addition to "covered by". An argument could be made that these editors are not significantly related to the subject of this article. However, that argument hasn't yet been made. In the meantime, I am replacing the template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. I hope you enjoy your corruption of this place. You're doing a fine job of it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm editing with my volunteer account for a reason. I don't work for Danese. If you don't care to participate anymore, that's unfortunate since you clearly know your way around BLPs, but I see no reason to freak out. You don't have to do what I say. Steven Walling 19:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As a member of the Foundation, your intervention on this matter and endorsement of the abjectly poor editing going on here by these editors is appalling. Shame on you. Guess I'm done here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Simon has pointed out to me that his edits were even less consequential than mine, and has requested that his name, too, should be removed from the template, which would leave the template empty and pointless. For obvious reasons, I declined to do this, but I agree with Simon and request that someone look at his edits and decide whether they meet the "significant" threshold. I also point out that Simon says that wikipedia currently has a "toxic atmosphere" and that he has given up editing Wikipedia. The numbers suggest that he's not the only person being discouraged by this toxicity. --RussNelson (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Taking things farther
Minor copyedits - COI, being a Wikipedian, I have heard of Danese Cooper when she visited Pune in September 2010. ;). AshLin (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Quotations
The gratuitous quotes are more advertising than encyclopedic. While she appears to have said these things, they do not define her and should not be included. This is not a brochure. Russ, I know you want to help your friend find her next job, but this is not the place to do it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see them as advertising. I see them as definitional, and thus encyclopedic. I know that you have your differences with Danese, but (continuing to) edit the article about her is not necessary; neither for Wikipedia, nor for you. I understand that you have a conflict of interest (last time you edited, you got smacked down) ... so could you please not edit this article? (and I would add that I am also refraining from editing it; I hope that you have the maturity to do the same.) I will give you a few days to calm down and revert the edits yourself, or for someone else to edit them. --RussNelson (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- For clarity, I have no differences (or affinity) with Danese whatsoever - unlike you. I don't believe I've ever encountered the woman. This is one of tens of thousands of articles that I have edited on wikipedia, and one of hundreds that have been puffed up by WP:COI editors such as yourself. Your COI is well established here (as well as on many of the articles you edit and disagree with others on.) Toddst1 (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- In a case like this, the article should remain as it was and if somebody other than you wishes to back up your deletion of these quotes, then I'll let them. For now, I'm restoring the article to its former content. "puffing"? I didn't add that content. Whatever happened to WP:AGF ?? --RussNelson (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Damiens.rf has done just that - backed up the deletion of the quotes. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Both you and Damiens.rf show a pattern of editing the pages of people associated with the Open Source Initiative. Given that the OSI is a political advocacy organization, it's reasonable to expect that you and she take an opposite political stance, and are using charges of WP:COI to damage the organization. Yeah, yeah, WP:AGF and all that, but when I see a pattern of holding articles to the letter of the law rather than the spirit, I stop assuming anything. There are a LOT of articles on Wikipedia that need more attention than these. Go away or tolerate charges of politically-motivated editing. RussNelson (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Russ, to be honest, I edited those articles following your edits which were a clear pattern of promotion of your former colleagues and buddies. It's indicative of serious problems when an editor rejects consensus as you are doing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Both you and Damiens.rf show a pattern of editing the pages of people associated with the Open Source Initiative. Given that the OSI is a political advocacy organization, it's reasonable to expect that you and she take an opposite political stance, and are using charges of WP:COI to damage the organization. Yeah, yeah, WP:AGF and all that, but when I see a pattern of holding articles to the letter of the law rather than the spirit, I stop assuming anything. There are a LOT of articles on Wikipedia that need more attention than these. Go away or tolerate charges of politically-motivated editing. RussNelson (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Damiens.rf has done just that - backed up the deletion of the quotes. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- In a case like this, the article should remain as it was and if somebody other than you wishes to back up your deletion of these quotes, then I'll let them. For now, I'm restoring the article to its former content. "puffing"? I didn't add that content. Whatever happened to WP:AGF ?? --RussNelson (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- For clarity, I have no differences (or affinity) with Danese whatsoever - unlike you. I don't believe I've ever encountered the woman. This is one of tens of thousands of articles that I have edited on wikipedia, and one of hundreds that have been puffed up by WP:COI editors such as yourself. Your COI is well established here (as well as on many of the articles you edit and disagree with others on.) Toddst1 (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Danese Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213031453/http://blip.tv/file/1137040 to http://blip.tv/file/1137040
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213031453/http://blip.tv/file/1137040 to http://blip.tv/file/1137040
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108181156/http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/072910_QA_Jay_Walsh_spokesperson_for_Wikimedia to http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/072910_QA_Jay_Walsh_spokesperson_for_Wikimedia
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Scientist / programmer
I agree with Schily's comments that no evidence of working in Computer Science or doing programming are present and have removed that from the article. The entire article discusses her activities around the business model of open source software. I've removed those terms from her description. The Dissident Aggressor 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Name..
cleanup
This is one of the crappiest BLPs I've seen in a while, full of incorrect citations, missing citations, primary sources etc. I've started some tagging, but it needs much more work, probably removing large sections that rely only on poor or non-existent sources. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- And I see there is a fair amount of WP:COI editing going on by prominent members of the Open Source community. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to improve the article by locating citations, etc. Thanks for your help! RussNelson (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration with poor BLPs for sure, but going around accusing people who are acting in good faith of being COI editors up to no good does nothing to improve the actual article. Lots of people with a connection to the open source community care about Danese's bio, which is part of what makes her notable in the first place. We should be working with these folks to make a better article, not trying to drive out those who clearly care about having a comprehensive and accurate biography that abides by the BLP policy. Steven Walling 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
COI disclosure
In these edits I made what I believe to be non-controversial tightening up of the language on the lead paragraph. I am an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and have a COI, and am posting this statement to disclose the COI publicly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Seems completely ok to me. Toddst1 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)